So I was considering posting this video for a while but didn't because I was unsure enough people would be able to follow it well enough to truly realize how much is going on and the greatness of each clip..
I have some time now so it occurred to me to make a long post explaining everything that goes on in each clip. This is a pretty great highlight, there are often multiple great plays in each clip so make sure you keep paying attention.
Without further adieu, the video followed by the explanations..
Note: Some people think it's gay that you can just TP out instead of dying, it should be mentioned that TPing is very costly, TP's cost 350 gold.
00:32 - Blademaster vs Archmage
This clip is mostly luck based, the Blademaster(green guy with sword) has a skill called windwalk which makes you invisible, able to walk through units as well as gives you extra damage on your next attack. He also has a skill called critical strike which does twice, three times or four times as much damage on 15% of his attacks.
In this clip he does many consecutive criticals as well as using WW to take down the Archmage despite being very low life.
One thing he does well in the video is move in between attacks to take as little damage as possible from the melee units(footmen)... Not the hardest thing to do but as you can see when the BM runs away it was VERY necessary. The other skill shown in this clip is that the Orc player was behind in this game and knew he needed to get lucky in order to pull it out. Not the best clip but entertaining none the less.
00:49 - Demon Hunter vs Blademaster in Night Elf Base
This clip shows both the BM and the DH moving while attacking. The DH does a great job of taking as little damage as possible from the grunts. After killing the BM the DH knows he won't make it away from the grunts because the Orc player used a speed scroll right before he died so that his grunts would catch the DH. The Orc player knows the Elf player must have been very fast when doing this so couldn't choose the location of his TP(You can TP to a certain radius around your TownHall or if you double click the TP itself it send you to just under your TownHall). Because the Orc player knows the Elf player had to do this in haste he knew exactly where the DH would go so he ran his grunts there to try to get the kill but the DH was just barely in range of the moon well to the left of the TreeOfLife so he was able to heal for just barely enough to not die.
1:09 - Good Archer Micro
1:20 - Orc Base
Orc uses peon to block one path but it looks like the DH will make it out anyways, Orc player uses a spell(Serpent Ward from Rhasta) to block his exit at last second.
1:37 - Items Are Good, Evasion Is Good
Orc player is getting chased down but uses an invulnerability potion and a scroll of healing to turn the tables. DH has a skill called evasion that gives 10/20/30% to dodge attacks, DH get's multiple dodges at the perfect time to allow him to get out of the ensnare net which allows the Beastmaster to use a staff of preservation on him and save him. Again not very skill intensive but in proleague games these kinds of things should be entertaining to an RTS fan.
1:55 - Lich Surrounding With Illusions
Elf Player controlling DH uses two items to get the Lich surrounded by himself, he uses a Wand of the Wind to cyclone the lich up in the air, and then very quickly using the wand of illusion up on his one hero to get a 4-point surround. The Lich tries to use a Staff of Teleportation(TP's just that hero to any allied unit but you can be attacked while Porting) But the Elf Player cyclones him again and forces the TP.
2:16 - Staff of Preservation and Death Coil
Elf uses Staff of preservation on his Panda while a lethal Death Coil is in the air and coming for him. The Coil travels across the map, Panda sees it in time and uses a TP which negates the Coil.
2:37 - Lightning fast Staff of Preservation to save Archer from Shockwave
2:40 - Wisp surround out of nowhere to force TP
2:53 - Footman Block followed by farm block to kill Archmage
3:12 - Elf players hides all his units to trap Dark Knight and force TP
3:33 - The DK and the healthy wisp
Full life DK walks innocently into Elf base only to be entangled(kept in place for a bit) and surrounded by 2 archers a KOTG and a wisp. The DK can kill a wisp with 1 coil and 1 attack but Elf player is constantly healing the Wisp with the Moon Well.
3:52 - Roar, Shockwave
DH has to TP to save himself and Orc throws a perfectly timed Shockwave to get the kill before the DH can buy a potion from the shop directly underneath him and heal.
4:09 - I really like this song lol.. and some ghouls do some stuff
Ok this guy creeps this expansion with nothing more than a few ghouls without losing anything WHILE fighting a battle. Just take a look at the HP on those ghouls. Human player can tell the UD has his attention divided and this matchup it is very common to do this kind of thing so he sends a footman to the UD base and snags two kills.
5:15 - Night elf rapes a BM with some fast wisp work and a Staff of Preservation
5:27 - The Longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever
The Red NE does some Zeppelin(Dropship) Harassment and when leaving he drops both heroes to take some shots at the Yellow players Zeppelin but Yellows Naga throws The longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever to Kill both heroes. It should be noted that the fact that both of Reds heroes where so low they died to this is indicative of good Zeppelin micro. Also notice as the Zeppelin flying away it teeters to the left and right, clearly drunken with dispair for his fallen brethren.
5:47 - ShockWave knows no bounds
Some nice micro from Elf player to cancel the tier 2 buildings of the Orc player, followed by a brilliant Shockwave to snag the DH kill.
6:08 - Knight gets staffed and still dies
6:15 - DK uses Dust of Appearance so he can see the invisible BM but the BM hides INSIDE of the giant Turtle so the Undead player can't attack him.
6:29 - AM matrix dodges a shockwave
6:39 - DotTs are good
Elf players get mass Druids of the Talon vs Orc 90% of the time, a good counter is the TC's shockwave, in this clip the Elf player does a perfect shockwave dodge by turning all of his DotT's into bird form at the exact time he needs to.
7:04 - BM gets Coil/Nova/Forked for instant kill before he can TP
7:16 - Panda!
Panda has Breath of Fire which is great for taking out buildings(towers). After he does some of that in the Undead base he Staffs to a wisp, and then uses his ultimate to save himself AND surround the Lich.
Hopefully even if you don't like WC(I actually don't like it that much even though I play like 20 games a day) you can still appreciate some of the cool things that happens in it.
Thank you for this post! Despite your explanations, I still find it difficult to appreciate what's going on, or even to understand it. This really helps me understand why my non SC-playing friends are totally indifferent when I show them amazing plays: if you haven't played the game for years, you just can't see it! For example, if you don't know the kind of movement patterns that a unit would normally have, then you won't notice shoot-while-moving micro or dodging in and out of the range of enemies.
Yeah. That's why I explained it. In fact I already explained why I explained it in my introduction and it exactly addresses the shit from that article.
If you still can't follow what's happening then go watch Street Fighter Highlights, maybe you'll be happy just watching the top 15% of the screen because then you'll always "know who's winning" as is mentioned of being important in the article that you linked.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
Surely this isn't true? Yes. the focus of WC3 is micro, but don't you still need to spend more time on macro than in many non-bliz games? In any case, we should talk about micro here.
I don't understand all the warcraft three hate that goes around here, since it seems odd to disparage a game that is really more similar to our passion than it is different. I so I see what you're trying to do
But I must say the editing in that video is simply atrocious. Having the action zoom in and out or tilt "dancing" to the music is annoying if you know what's going on, but I imagine it makes what is a blur of units and abilities to the novice seem like a frustrating headache that isn't worthwhile.
Maybe you'd be better off picking a video that doesn't get so cute with the effects.
I get kinda frustrated when hardcore SC fans slag off WC3(and vice-versa of course). Both games are great, but both groups seem to think if one game dies then this will improve the other games competitive scene. It's like CS1.6 players hating on CS:S. When the CGS died, they all said it was great for gaming and would improve the "better" CS. However, instead of boosting the 1.6 scene, it made sponsors wary of e-sports in general, therefore decreasing e-sports overall rather than benefiting 1.6. I love both games; it's fine not to, but even if you don't you've got to accept there is great skill in both(even if it's not easy to see or understand it).
Moons zeppelin micro in Weryeery's post 2 above is just damn gosu.
On January 15 2009 15:53 inReacH wrote: If you still can't follow what's happening then go watch Street Fighter Highlights, maybe you'll be happy just watching the top 15% of the screen because then you'll always "know who's winning" as is mentioned of being important in the article that you linked.
in 3s "who is winning" has more factors than life bar, including SA meter condition and which characters they are using.
Life bar being inside "1 hit kill" range is also a factor (ie getting chained into SA means death)
i didnt read your explanations (didnt need to, used to play wc3 hardcore) but the video showed some pretty amazing moves. i almost couldnt stand it though when the maker did excess zooming/camera effects though. still it was pretty interesting and fun, thanks
It's just noovs that hate wc3. Sure I can say it's not my type of game, but I enjoy it sometimes, but in my opinion BW is more fun competing in.
If you played it you know wc3 actually takes skill. The bad thing with wc3 is that luck can be a big factor, like dodge, crits and item drops. Don't say like a good player will use everything to their advantage, a crit is a crit, and it can end the game. Only using luck. Blizzard should remove the luck things imo.
I agree partly with you Zoler, but there are formulas in place that regulate the crits/any other percentage based skill. It keeps it at exactly 15% over the duration of the game(maybe a bit off, like 15.03%). However, there is still luck as to when they will happen.
Item drops need to be sorted, agreed.
There are a few luck factors in SC(dud scarabs) but it obviously has much less luck involved.
On January 15 2009 18:59 LipsOfDeceit wrote: I agree partly with you Zoler, but there are formulas in place that regulate the crits/any other percentage based skill. It keeps it at exactly 15% over the duration of the game(maybe a bit off, like 15.03%). However, there is still luck as to when they will happen.
Item drops need to be sorted, agreed.
There are a few luck factors in SC(dud scarabs) but it obviously has much less luck involved.
I really don't see how what you said about crits can be true, seeing as how that BM hit like 4 or 5 crits in a row. Obviously what you said would mean that the next X hits would have very few crits but since the games can be very short if they wanted to achieve near exactly 15% they would have to be much more limiting than what I have seen.
On January 15 2009 15:53 inReacH wrote: If you still can't follow what's happening then go watch Street Fighter Highlights, maybe you'll be happy just watching the top 15% of the screen because then you'll always "know who's winning" as is mentioned of being important in the article that you linked.
in 3s "who is winning" has more factors than life bar, including SA meter condition and which characters they are using.
Life bar being inside "1 hit kill" range is also a factor (ie getting chained into SA means death)
etc
Just because a matchup isn't completely balanced doesn't mean someone is winning off the get go... noone loses a good matchup and has his friends come up to him and say.. "Aw too bad you were winning right after the character selection screen"
And saying you have to follow the SA bar too as opposed to just the health bar doesn't really negate my point.
Anyways I have nothing against SF I'm just saying it's easy to follow who is winning but that doesn't make it a great spectator sport.
thanks for the expalanations, originally i watched the video without reading it and i didn't understand like 2 or 3 situations. For example the blade master inside of the big turtle lol, that is genius hehe.
On January 15 2009 15:53 inReacH wrote: If you still can't follow what's happening then go watch Street Fighter Highlights, maybe you'll be happy just watching the top 15% of the screen because then you'll always "know who's winning" as is mentioned of being important in the article that you linked.
in 3s "who is winning" has more factors than life bar, including SA meter condition and which characters they are using.
Life bar being inside "1 hit kill" range is also a factor (ie getting chained into SA means death)
etc
Just because a matchup isn't completely balanced doesn't mean someone is winning off the get go... noone loses a good matchup and has his friends come up to him and say.. "Aw too bad you were winning right after the character selection screen"
And saying you have to follow the SA bar too as opposed to just the health bar doesn't really negate my point.
Anyways I have nothing against SF I'm just saying it's easy to follow who is winning but that doesn't make it a great spectator sport.
What if two players are 100% equal? Then the one with the advantage due to unbalance will likely win. An advantage is an advantage, doesn't matter who wins.Your argument is lacking.
On January 15 2009 15:53 inReacH wrote: If you still can't follow what's happening then go watch Street Fighter Highlights, maybe you'll be happy just watching the top 15% of the screen because then you'll always "know who's winning" as is mentioned of being important in the article that you linked.
in 3s "who is winning" has more factors than life bar, including SA meter condition and which characters they are using.
Life bar being inside "1 hit kill" range is also a factor (ie getting chained into SA means death)
etc
Just because a matchup isn't completely balanced doesn't mean someone is winning off the get go... noone loses a good matchup and has his friends come up to him and say.. "Aw too bad you were winning right after the character selection screen"
And saying you have to follow the SA bar too as opposed to just the health bar doesn't really negate my point.
Anyways I have nothing against SF I'm just saying it's easy to follow who is winning but that doesn't make it a great spectator sport.
What if two players are 100% equal? Then the one with the advantage due to unbalance will likely win. An advantage is an advantage, doesn't matter who wins.Your argument is lacking.
Having an advantage is not literally the same as winning despite the fact that you can infer that a player is winning by pointing out that he has an advantage in a critical aspect of the game.
To be literally winning players must have taken action in gameplay.
This is because there are many X factors besides just character selection such as skill or fatigue etc. Two players cannot be exactly equal in every relevant category.
Anyways not really the point of my post I was just trying to discredit some idiot who made a shit post that just had one link and posted as though it meant something.
That video was mad, couldn't understand anything that was happening 'till I read your post though.
Starcraft is not only much clearer as to being able to see things, but it's also easier to understand, the only things that aren't really clear in starcraft at first glance are dark swarm, and maybe Dweb. Stasis is easy to understand because of the visual effect, I suppose EMP is a bit difficult work out straight up too. Ensnare is ok because of the visual effect and clear difference in speed of the units.
I too have been playing wc3 for years, micro is definitely much more integral to it than sc but it is extremely complicated, even a noob can understand psionic storm owns stuff. The only things not immediately clear in starcraft are probably dark swarm and disruption web but then once they're explained you always know it, warcraft 3 is just too complicated to have widespread eSports potential
Nice video. I haven't followed War3 for quite awhile so it's nice to see videos like this every now and then to see some of the things people have come up with. That BM inside of turtle was super cute ^_^ Could've done without some of the super zooming jitterbug stuff in a few of the beginning scenes though.
To be honest, I've tried time and time again to get into WC3 melees. I've played them, I've watched replays, learned build orders, even smashed a few people on the ladder. I played Undead, and I really liked Crypt Fiends . However, the games just weren't as fun or exciting for me. Most of the time I was playing, I was just thinking about how I'd rather be doing a Zergling run-by, or some Muta micro. And the severe lack of macro really is what killed it for me. I live off of 0sh9sh8sz7sd6sd.
I do play and enjoy the custom maps in WC3 though. I like the editors power and you can do many interesting and unique things that the SC editor just can't handle.
WC3 is actually really fun if you were a strong micro player in SC and take it as a totally different game. It's just a bitch learning all the spells for four races. This is a nice highlight though
I liked some of the micro clips but highlights of stuff like evasion or random reach on spells is the reason why I hate War3 so much. Sometimes you just get RNG'd and have no way to win.
On January 16 2009 04:06 KissBlade wrote: I liked some of the micro clips but highlights of stuff like evasion or random reach on spells is the reason why I hate War3 so much. Sometimes you just get RNG'd and have no way to win.
Gawd it's never that severe at all.. SC has random elements too like AI targeting and critter blocks People who cry about stuff like that are looking for something to cry about. Sure it happens but it's not exactly a frequent game decider.
I do agree it should be minimalized but it's not a reason to hate a game.
I've played a bit of WC3 but never got too into it. I don't know much about the game, but when I watched the video, I was able to understand a good portion of it. A lot of the moves are very similar to some awesome moves we see in SC, things like the surrounds and the blocking exits (for example with the farm or whatever the orc version of them are called)
I remember watching the micro in Weryeery's post before and thinking "holy crap that's insane" but didn't appreciate the impact it had on the game until I read about it. It was some insane micro, but nothing died, so to someone like me that doesn't know much about the game, it seems like an empty move that doesn't accomplish anything
So I watched some WC3 progames, and this guy called Sky(?) who played Human played in such a destructive way that it was rather painful to watch, even if I didn't really know what was going on.
On January 16 2009 05:54 Purind wrote: I remember watching the micro in Weryeery's post before and thinking "holy crap that's insane" but didn't appreciate the impact it had on the game until I read about it. It was some insane micro, but nothing died, so to someone like me that doesn't know much about the game, it seems like an empty move that doesn't accomplish anything
That's a good point that brings up an issue that I've noticed for a really long time about WarCraft 3. So much of what goes on inside the game is subtle (much more so than in StarCraft), and a lot of times it's hard for people who aren't really, really good at the game to fully grasp what happened and why it was done or why it was so important. Even pretty good players that consider themselves very skilled often times miss many of these subtle details and misunderstand the importance of vital concepts such as timing, because concepts such as these aren't always visible.
So when you show a game like this to people who really don't know anything about the game, and even StarCraft players are included in this category (because while StarCraft is probably one of the closest things out there to WarCraft 3 and they should understand the concepts better than most, it is still a very, VERY different game and these players aren't trained to pick up on the subtle intricacies of the game), so many things just seem boring or pointless, and as many have echoed here, extremely easy. While relatively speaking some of that may or may not be true, there is far far more to the game than meets the eye, and it's difficult for someone who doesn't understand the game very well to appreciate much of what is going on.
I think that's one of the big flaws with WarCraft 3 in terms of its interest towards spectators. You really need to know the game to enjoy watching it, or you'll find yourself very unimpressed or bored.
With that in mind, I think it's great that the OP provided such detailed explanations, as I think that really helps people with limited knowledge about the game understand why these different things are something to respect.
On January 15 2009 15:26 inReacH wrote: 5:27 - The Longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever
6:29 - AM matrix dodges a shockwave
What's so exciting about a long range forked lighting? Did he do some micro trick to break the set maximum range? Also, I don't know what you mean by AM matrix dodge. I watched it a couple times, and I have no idea what happened.
On January 16 2009 09:20 ExaltedElegance wrote: The Archmage matrix dodge involved using one of his Scout Towers to take the hit of the Shockwave for him.
Nope. The explanation is wrong as well. The shockwave clearly goes through the tower and hits the Archmage. What was nice about the clip was the shockwave killing the Ivory Tower. You can tell that the HU player was towering the Orc due to the presence of militia and the item slots of the AM (He had 3 Ivory Towers). He was putting up Ivory towers, which once placed automatically build themselves very quickly. The shockwave, not the 'dodge' was what was nice. The Orc killed the tower as soon as it was placed down. Had he not used shockwave when he did, the tower would not have been killed in one hit.
And another thing I noticed quickly skimming the explanation. 2:37 - Lightning fast Staff of Preservation to save Archer from Shockwave should actually be saves TWO archers, which is even more impressive.
On January 15 2009 15:26 inReacH wrote: 5:27 - The Longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever
6:29 - AM matrix dodges a shockwave
What's so exciting about a long range forked lighting? Did he do some micro trick to break the set maximum range? Also, I don't know what you mean by AM matrix dodge. I watched it a couple times, and I have no idea what happened.
he just used the tower to dodge. and the forked lightning idk, it looks normal to me.
On January 16 2009 09:20 ExaltedElegance wrote: The Archmage matrix dodge involved using one of his Scout Towers to take the hit of the Shockwave for him.
Nope. The explanation is wrong as well. The shockwave clearly goes through the tower and hits the Archmage. What was nice about the clip was the shockwave killing the Ivory Tower. You can tell that the HU player was towering the Orc due to the presence of militia and the item slots of the AM (He had 3 Ivory Towers). He was putting up Ivory towers, which once placed automatically build themselves very quickly. The shockwave, not the 'dodge' was what was nice. The Orc killed the tower as soon as it was placed down. Had he not used shockwave when he did, the tower would not have been killed in one hit.
And another thing I noticed quickly skimming the explanation. 2:37 - Lightning fast Staff of Preservation to save Archer from Shockwave should actually be saves TWO archers, which is even more impressive.
That's more of a mismicro on the Human's part, then. It should be pretty easy to expect a Shockwave coming at your units in the middle of a battle like that anyway, so he definitely could have waited to put that first Scout Tower down.
About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
On January 15 2009 18:59 LipsOfDeceit wrote: I agree partly with you Zoler, but there are formulas in place that regulate the crits/any other percentage based skill. It keeps it at exactly 15% over the duration of the game(maybe a bit off, like 15.03%). However, there is still luck as to when they will happen.
Item drops need to be sorted, agreed.
There are a few luck factors in SC(dud scarabs) but it obviously has much less luck involved.
actually, dud scarabs aren't luck based. Scarabs go after whatever unit is targeted, if that units being blocked, too bad. You can still target an SCV that will end near the back of the line though.
Man that hurts my eyes when they do that camera thing out of nowhere. It's a good thing I didnt' watch this with my brother as he's prone to epileptic seizures.
Most of the things in that clip weren't anything too special (a few were), that was more of just a quick recap of some of the better moments from the Moon vs Sky match in a particular tournament from awhile back. Most of that stuff really shouldn't 'wow' you, but some of it is still kinda cool.
On January 18 2009 10:30 Xenixx wrote: good post enjoyed the tidbits but you should take a look at dota, its completely micro oriented and is the only reason i play war3
There is no micro in dota. you control 1 unit (a hero). Dota is about teamwork & strategies
On January 18 2009 10:11 Orlandu wrote: Most of the things in that clip weren't anything too special (a few were), that was more of just a quick recap of some of the better moments from the Moon vs Sky match in a particular tournament from awhile back. Most of that stuff really shouldn't 'wow' you, but some of it is still kinda cool.
In my opinion every scene was special, sky vs moon are always super epic. If ur a regular war3 player you will see the epicness
On January 18 2009 10:30 Xenixx wrote: good post enjoyed the tidbits but you should take a look at dota, its completely micro oriented and is the only reason i play war3
On January 18 2009 10:30 Xenixx wrote: good post enjoyed the tidbits but you should take a look at dota, its completely micro oriented and is the only reason i play war3
There is no micro in dota. you control 1 unit (a hero). Dota is about teamwork & strategies
On January 18 2009 10:11 Orlandu wrote: Most of the things in that clip weren't anything too special (a few were), that was more of just a quick recap of some of the better moments from the Moon vs Sky match in a particular tournament from awhile back. Most of that stuff really shouldn't 'wow' you, but some of it is still kinda cool.
In my opinion every scene was special, sky vs moon are always super epic. If ur a regular war3 player you will see the epicness
I don't disagree that Moon vs Sky encounters are exciting, because they definitely are, but the entire point of that video clip was to recap the better moments of their encounter from a particular tournament (the opening clearly shows that), not to display the all-time best moves of those players or anything. Most of the things that they did are pretty common from those two players, and even though those scenes may or may not have been exciting (and some very clearly were), most of those things weren't as rare or as exceptional as what this thread originally intended to showcase. That clip was more about the highlights of a particular match whereas this thread is more about moves that really make you say "Wow! I haven't seen something like that before/in a long time, there's some really cool stuff you can do in this game!" That's all I was pointing out, since the user I replied to seemed to be a little confused as to why that video clip was supposed to be special. I definitely agree that if you know the game a lot of it was still cool stuff, regardless of how special each scene may or may not have been
I have actually played WarCraft 3 a good bit myself and have attended quite a few large scale tournaments, so I'm definitely familiar with these kinds of events/players/matches.
Yes, there's less macro, but wc3 players need to organise their creeping and item buying (which requires cutting units for some who complain abt that too)
Like if u creep higher lvl creeps you stand to gain more xp but risk losing a lot when u get creep-jacked or when some one atks your base.
Humans can change pesants into militia, sacrificing lumber for faster xp or expansion.
I still think SC is harder, but WC3 certainly is a fun game too.
I wanted to start a thread like this too, to correct the misunderstadings abt wc3 but u certainly were beter :D
On January 15 2009 18:59 LipsOfDeceit wrote: I agree partly with you Zoler, but there are formulas in place that regulate the crits/any other percentage based skill. It keeps it at exactly 15% over the duration of the game(maybe a bit off, like 15.03%). However, there is still luck as to when they will happen.
Item drops need to be sorted, agreed.
There are a few luck factors in SC(dud scarabs) but it obviously has much less luck involved.
actually, dud scarabs aren't luck based. Scarabs go after whatever unit is targeted, if that units being blocked, too bad. You can still target an SCV that will end near the back of the line though.
i have to agree with this, people complain about a dud scarab, but its a shot that because of the placement of the cc would fail eeeevery time.
more on topic. I think war3 and starcraft are equivalent in micro. Just because one has more patrol micro doesn't make it overall better. Until a player can micro everything going on in the game near perfectly then it can still be used competively.
Warcraft 3 and Starcraft have different kinds of macro, in wc3 when you play human if you make too many towers vs a destro push you WILL lose and if you make too few you WILL lose. In starcraft you need to mass produce, expand and keep ur economy low and unit count high basically. In wc3 it's not the same at all. The macro in warcraft is all about how many and when. Warcraft 3 macro takes more thinking then SC macro while SC macro requires insane speed which is a lot harder then wc3 macro. But after all Wc3 is a micro based game and it's all about micro in the end.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I got into WC3 to see what all the hype was about... played it for a few months until I got completely bored with it -_-
I agree with everything you said. It was also very annoying that everything in WC3 was so s l o w.. Units take a 100 years to die, move slowly, bases take ages to build, even the mouse and scrolling speed is way slower than in SC! omg
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I got into WC3 to see what all the hype was about... played it for a few months until I got completely bored with it -_-
I agree with everything you said. It was also very annoying that everything in WC3 was so s l o w.. Units take a 100 years to die, move slowly, bases take ages to build, even the mouse and scrolling speed is way slower than in SC! omg
Ugh I was starting to think this thread might actually stay relatively free of people who think they know something and start posting out of their ass.
In the video I posted you can see an undead ghoul creeping while fight a battle which is very difficult because you can lose units on two different places on the map, creeping that camp with 5-7 ghouls would be hard enough by itself.
All races can benefit greatly by harassing with their first hero while creeping with their second hero/army in the midgame.
There is a TON of solo hero harassment in the game... and that means potentially doing it AND defending it while also creeping with your 2nd hero and army.
There is also something called single screen multitasking.. there are a ton of things to do at the same time every battle and knowing what to do when and what to do it to depending on positioning is very difficult.
Also unit pulls make for a lot of different things that need you attentions, you have to refocus units that are targeting a unit that has enough life to run away while making sure you are running away your own high life units etc etc etc... I could go on
Starcraft is a better and more difficult game but you shouldn't post things you know nothing about.
EDIT: I just compared the building times quickly because I thought you were full of shit and the average of building times is like 10 seconds apart at most.
On January 16 2009 05:54 Purind wrote: I remember watching the micro in Weryeery's post before and thinking "holy crap that's insane" but didn't appreciate the impact it had on the game until I read about it. It was some insane micro, but nothing died, so to someone like me that doesn't know much about the game, it seems like an empty move that doesn't accomplish anything
That's a good point that brings up an issue that I've noticed for a really long time about WarCraft 3. So much of what goes on inside the game is subtle (much more so than in StarCraft), and a lot of times it's hard for people who aren't really, really good at the game to fully grasp what happened and why it was done or why it was so important. Even pretty good players that consider themselves very skilled often times miss many of these subtle details and misunderstand the importance of vital concepts such as timing, because concepts such as these aren't always visible.
So when you show a game like this to people who really don't know anything about the game, and even StarCraft players are included in this category (because while StarCraft is probably one of the closest things out there to WarCraft 3 and they should understand the concepts better than most, it is still a very, VERY different game and these players aren't trained to pick up on the subtle intricacies of the game), so many things just seem boring or pointless, and as many have echoed here, extremely easy. While relatively speaking some of that may or may not be true, there is far far more to the game than meets the eye, and it's difficult for someone who doesn't understand the game very well to appreciate much of what is going on.
I think that's one of the big flaws with WarCraft 3 in terms of its interest towards spectators. You really need to know the game to enjoy watching it, or you'll find yourself very unimpressed or bored.
With that in mind, I think it's great that the OP provided such detailed explanations, as I think that really helps people with limited knowledge about the game understand why these different things are something to respect.
I played WC3 for about 2.5 years in high school before switching back to SC. (It was watching pimpest plays that made me switch).
I think part of the reason that warcraft 3 is more confusing is that the a lot of the spells are buffs or debuffs. Example: bloodlust is a game changing spell, greatly increasing attack speed, but as a spectator, you might not notice the increase in attack speed. Yes, the units grow bigger and there's a graphical change, but in a big battle with flashy spells flying everywhere, the spectator might not understand the importance of +40% attack speed.
Whereas in StarCraft, a game changing spell might be a storm, and that's just hard to miss; with the explosions and blood erupting underneath the storm, the spectator KNOWS that something powerful just happened.
Another thing is that WC3 concentrates a lot on saving units because of the importance of heroes and XP. Though to a skilled player, watching a player run a wisp time a detonate against a coil is a demonstration of skill, to a the spectator it's not nearly as entertaining as watching a 100 food army of TvP smash into each other. Yes, in StarCraft, people pick off units and do things on a smaller level too, especially late late game (when the map is mined out) and early game (where every unit matters) but it's not like losing a unit will lose you the game (except in ZvZ -_-) whereas losing a hero is a huge setback.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I have seen some players (namely Madfrog) creeping 3 place same time and harassing too with his hero.
Nowdays its standard requirements to manage creeping and harassing at the same time.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I got into WC3 to see what all the hype was about... played it for a few months until I got completely bored with it -_-
I agree with everything you said. It was also very annoying that everything in WC3 was so s l o w.. Units take a 100 years to die, move slowly, bases take ages to build, even the mouse and scrolling speed is way slower than in SC! omg
Ugh I was starting to think this thread might actually stay relatively free of people who think they know something and start posting out of their ass.
In the video I posted you can see an undead ghoul creeping while fight a battle which is very difficult because you can lose units on two different places on the map, creeping that camp with 5-7 ghouls would be hard enough by itself.
All races can benefit greatly by harassing with their first hero while creeping with their second hero/army in the midgame.
There is a TON of solo hero harassment in the game... and that means potentially doing it AND defending it while also creeping with your 2nd hero and army.
There is also something called single screen multitasking.. there are a ton of things to do at the same time every battle and knowing what to do when and what to do it to depending on positioning is very difficult.
Also unit pulls make for a lot of different things that need you attentions, you have to refocus units that are targeting a unit that has enough life to run away while making sure you are running away your own high life units etc etc etc... I could go on
Starcraft is a better and more difficult game but you shouldn't post things you know nothing about.
EDIT: I just compared the building times quickly because I thought you were full of shit and the average of building times is like 10 seconds apart at most.
I do remember MadFrog began creeping while doing herassment, but this still dosent remotely compare to what kind of multitasking is required in BW. Let me elaborate:
There is an infite difference between attacking creeps that is controlled by the ai or attack some human controlled units. The creeps are stupid; what you are required to do, is to pull damaged ghouls back and then the creep will attack your other gouls and whatnot.
In BW everything you do is against another human. This means that if you attack on a front for diversion and simultaniously doing (lets just say one herassment for simplicity) doing a drop on his mineral line with some templars, your opponent will react cleverly and try to escape his workers, intercept your shuttle and kill your templars. So for you to benefit from the drop, you will have to calculate where his workers are going while doing the front attack and if you want to escape with your shuttle and templars it required even more micro. And a templar drop is really one of the easy herassments compared to e.g. muta herass and reaver.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
There is a HUGE amount of multi tasking in wc3. Mostly depends on waht race you play though
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I got into WC3 to see what all the hype was about... played it for a few months until I got completely bored with it -_-
I agree with everything you said. It was also very annoying that everything in WC3 was so s l o w.. Units take a 100 years to die, move slowly, bases take ages to build, even the mouse and scrolling speed is way slower than in SC! omg
Ugh I was starting to think this thread might actually stay relatively free of people who think they know something and start posting out of their ass.
In the video I posted you can see an undead ghoul creeping while fight a battle which is very difficult because you can lose units on two different places on the map, creeping that camp with 5-7 ghouls would be hard enough by itself.
All races can benefit greatly by harassing with their first hero while creeping with their second hero/army in the midgame.
There is a TON of solo hero harassment in the game... and that means potentially doing it AND defending it while also creeping with your 2nd hero and army.
There is also something called single screen multitasking.. there are a ton of things to do at the same time every battle and knowing what to do when and what to do it to depending on positioning is very difficult.
Also unit pulls make for a lot of different things that need you attentions, you have to refocus units that are targeting a unit that has enough life to run away while making sure you are running away your own high life units etc etc etc... I could go on
Starcraft is a better and more difficult game but you shouldn't post things you know nothing about.
EDIT: I just compared the building times quickly because I thought you were full of shit and the average of building times is like 10 seconds apart at most.
I do remember MadFrog began creeping while doing herassment, but this still dosent remotely compare to what kind of multitasking is required in BW. Let me elaborate:
There is an infite difference between attacking creeps that is controlled by the ai or attack some human controlled units. The creeps are stupid; what you are required to do, is to pull damaged ghouls back and then the creep will attack your other gouls and whatnot.
In BW everything you do is against another human. This means that if you attack on a front for diversion and simultaniously doing (lets just say one herassment for simplicity) doing a drop on his mineral line with some templars, your opponent will react cleverly and try to escape his workers, intercept your shuttle and kill your templars. So for you to benefit from the drop, you will have to calculate where his workers are going while doing the front attack and if you want to escape with your shuttle and templars it required even more micro. And a templar drop is really one of the easy herassments compared to e.g. muta herass and reaver.
Whatever dude, your clueless. I have no interest in starting an example war.. try doing well on Blizzards next invitational ladder and see if you can get a single win without multitasking.
From experience I know that playing wc3 is a lot harder than it looks but damn, that sure as hell doesn't make it entertaining for me to watch, I KNOW the micro in the video in the OP is really good, it just doesn't change anything for me, whenever I watch a wc3 vod I get sleepy as hell. Maybe it's the lack of units, the time it takes for units to die or the fantasy setting, I don't know.
Good effort making the OP though, Im sure there are people here who havent played wc3 yet and do like it.
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
I got into WC3 to see what all the hype was about... played it for a few months until I got completely bored with it -_-
I agree with everything you said. It was also very annoying that everything in WC3 was so s l o w.. Units take a 100 years to die, move slowly, bases take ages to build, even the mouse and scrolling speed is way slower than in SC! omg
Ugh I was starting to think this thread might actually stay relatively free of people who think they know something and start posting out of their ass.
In the video I posted you can see an undead ghoul creeping while fight a battle which is very difficult because you can lose units on two different places on the map, creeping that camp with 5-7 ghouls would be hard enough by itself.
All races can benefit greatly by harassing with their first hero while creeping with their second hero/army in the midgame.
There is a TON of solo hero harassment in the game... and that means potentially doing it AND defending it while also creeping with your 2nd hero and army.
There is also something called single screen multitasking.. there are a ton of things to do at the same time every battle and knowing what to do when and what to do it to depending on positioning is very difficult.
Also unit pulls make for a lot of different things that need you attentions, you have to refocus units that are targeting a unit that has enough life to run away while making sure you are running away your own high life units etc etc etc... I could go on
Starcraft is a better and more difficult game but you shouldn't post things you know nothing about.
EDIT: I just compared the building times quickly because I thought you were full of shit and the average of building times is like 10 seconds apart at most.
I do remember MadFrog began creeping while doing herassment, but this still dosent remotely compare to what kind of multitasking is required in BW. Let me elaborate:
There is an infite difference between attacking creeps that is controlled by the ai or attack some human controlled units. The creeps are stupid; what you are required to do, is to pull damaged ghouls back and then the creep will attack your other gouls and whatnot.
In BW everything you do is against another human. This means that if you attack on a front for diversion and simultaniously doing (lets just say one herassment for simplicity) doing a drop on his mineral line with some templars, your opponent will react cleverly and try to escape his workers, intercept your shuttle and kill your templars. So for you to benefit from the drop, you will have to calculate where his workers are going while doing the front attack and if you want to escape with your shuttle and templars it required even more micro. And a templar drop is really one of the easy herassments compared to e.g. muta herass and reaver.
just the perfect control of your heroes is enough... it`s not like u tell them to attack and leave them, u need to have lightning-reflexes to counter a spell and stuff like that...it`s just that the smart casting and auto-cast helps u. but yes, controlling two groups of mutas at the same time is the shit
On January 15 2009 15:44 jodogohoo wrote: I APPROVE OF THIS. Only thing I don't like is the fact there is no macro in warcraft and the only thing people have to focus on is micro
The main problem with WC3 is not the lack of time consuming macro. The problem is that in WC3 you have one army that absolutely have to stay together. Now what this means, is that there is no, and I mean NO, multitasking in wc3. Its all about who can time and use their infite amount of spells fastest, and the one that falls behind in a battle then tp's out. Now the other player have gained a small economy advantage and they run around a little and then do the same thing again and again, until one player can't affort a tp and then he has lost.
In WC3 there are no base raids, single drops, multiple drops, little forces to take out key buildings, because units without a hero among them are useless more or less.
Ahhh.. That felt good to write.
As other people have already pointed out, a lot of that just isn't true at all. Generally speaking you're right that an army should be together most of the time, but there are many, many times where lots of multi-tasking is required. Just not in the same way as StarCraft. And that's a key thing to remember, because if you don't then you'll keep comparing the game to StarCraft and miss a lot of important things.
The last part of the first paragraph I can't really comment on much just because it's so off based on a previous assumption, but the second part of your post is completely wrong as well because if you've ever watched games with Grubby vs an Undead, Sky and many other humans vs any Night Elf, or really anyone who knows how to effectively creep and harass efficiently at the same time, then you've seen everything that you just said wasn't in the game. The only thing that I agree you may not see too much are multiple drops, just because you can't build your own zeppelins and have to buy them at certain times at a neutral shop.
Not that this means the macro is anywhere close to StarCraft's level, because it's not, but it is very different and difficult in it's own way. I think Ixion made a pretty good example to illustrate this some in his example about towers and destroyers. You can't just mindlessly macro and make stuff, you have to know how to effectively time things and build just the right amount and when you need them. In that sense the macro can be very difficult for players because most players just flat out don't know how to recognize these things, whereas in StarCraft it's a bit more obvious as to what you need to do.
EDIT: Here's Ixion's post to illustrate his example that I referred to...
On January 19 2009 00:07 ixion wrote: Warcraft 3 and Starcraft have different kinds of macro, in wc3 when you play human if you make too many towers vs a destro push you WILL lose and if you make too few you WILL lose. In starcraft you need to mass produce, expand and keep ur economy low and unit count high basically. In wc3 it's not the same at all. The macro in warcraft is all about how many and when. Warcraft 3 macro takes more thinking then SC macro while SC macro requires insane speed which is a lot harder then wc3 macro. But after all Wc3 is a micro based game and it's all about micro in the end.
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
On January 16 2009 05:54 Purind wrote: I remember watching the micro in Weryeery's post before and thinking "holy crap that's insane" but didn't appreciate the impact it had on the game until I read about it. It was some insane micro, but nothing died, so to someone like me that doesn't know much about the game, it seems like an empty move that doesn't accomplish anything
That's a good point that brings up an issue that I've noticed for a really long time about WarCraft 3. So much of what goes on inside the game is subtle (much more so than in StarCraft), and a lot of times it's hard for people who aren't really, really good at the game to fully grasp what happened and why it was done or why it was so important. Even pretty good players that consider themselves very skilled often times miss many of these subtle details and misunderstand the importance of vital concepts such as timing, because concepts such as these aren't always visible.
So when you show a game like this to people who really don't know anything about the game, and even StarCraft players are included in this category (because while StarCraft is probably one of the closest things out there to WarCraft 3 and they should understand the concepts better than most, it is still a very, VERY different game and these players aren't trained to pick up on the subtle intricacies of the game), so many things just seem boring or pointless, and as many have echoed here, extremely easy. While relatively speaking some of that may or may not be true, there is far far more to the game than meets the eye, and it's difficult for someone who doesn't understand the game very well to appreciate much of what is going on.
I think that's one of the big flaws with WarCraft 3 in terms of its interest towards spectators. You really need to know the game to enjoy watching it, or you'll find yourself very unimpressed or bored.
With that in mind, I think it's great that the OP provided such detailed explanations, as I think that really helps people with limited knowledge about the game understand why these different things are something to respect.
I played WC3 for about 2.5 years in high school before switching back to SC. (It was watching pimpest plays that made me switch).
I think part of the reason that warcraft 3 is more confusing is that the a lot of the spells are buffs or debuffs. Example: bloodlust is a game changing spell, greatly increasing attack speed, but as a spectator, you might not notice the increase in attack speed. Yes, the units grow bigger and there's a graphical change, but in a big battle with flashy spells flying everywhere, the spectator might not understand the importance of +40% attack speed.
Whereas in StarCraft, a game changing spell might be a storm, and that's just hard to miss; with the explosions and blood erupting underneath the storm, the spectator KNOWS that something powerful just happened.
Another thing is that WC3 concentrates a lot on saving units because of the importance of heroes and XP. Though to a skilled player, watching a player run a wisp time a detonate against a coil is a demonstration of skill, to a the spectator it's not nearly as entertaining as watching a 100 food army of TvP smash into each other. Yes, in StarCraft, people pick off units and do things on a smaller level too, especially late late game (when the map is mined out) and early game (where every unit matters) but it's not like losing a unit will lose you the game (except in ZvZ -_-) whereas losing a hero is a huge setback.
Yeah those are also good points as to why it can be difficult to watch. You really need to know the game well to be able to follow everything and appreciate what's going on.
On January 19 2009 05:21 Frits wrote: From experience I know that playing wc3 is a lot harder than it looks but damn, that sure as hell doesn't make it entertaining for me to watch, I KNOW the micro in the video in the OP is really good, it just doesn't change anything for me, whenever I watch a wc3 vod I get sleepy as hell. Maybe it's the lack of units, the time it takes for units to die or the fantasy setting, I don't know.
Good effort making the OP though, Im sure there are people here who havent played wc3 yet and do like it.
I think a lot of people are similar, even when they really enjoy the game. Back when I played StarCraft seriously, I could watch tons and tons of replays without any problem. But in WarCraft 3, it's difficult to even watch more than a few because it will often times get boring and sometimes even make me feel sleepy, even though I really like the game and am able to follow what's going on.
I think a good part of it may have to do with creeping, and also the battles can drag out sometimes, but I also think that part of it is that there are so many subtleties to the game that watching it just makes everything seem less important than when you're actually playing. I'm not sure exactly, but I definitely agree that it's not as exciting to watch as a game like StarCraft.
Nowadays the only time I ever really watch WarCraft 3 matches is when it's a Chinese tournament, because I can listen to the shoutcasters (and they stream matches at a pretty good time for me). Other than that I don't really find it interesting to watch replays or other streams anymore, although it has been a long time since I played the game seriously at all.
People might ask then why play the game if so many people feel this way. For me at least, the game was just more fun to play than StarCraft was. Maybe I had just gotten burned out on StarCraft at the time, maybe it was all of the new tournaments, maybe it was because of real-life influences, or maybe the game really is more fun to play. I don't know, but I've had a lot of fun playing the game over the years and I've never regretted it at all. You should play what you enjoy playing, that's the bottom line.
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Some people are saying they get sleepy when watching wc3 vods.. if you get sleeping watching high level play with good commentators then idk what planet ur from
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh give it up, the way you said it made one (likely to) assume that the range of the spell was longer than its normal max-range.
Don't call someone an idiot when he makes a civil post like that, just explain what you meant to say - this is a good thread and there's no need to worsen the atmosphere in this way
On January 21 2009 05:59 ixion wrote: Some people are saying they get sleepy when watching wc3 vods.. if you get sleeping watching high level play with good commentators then idk what planet ur from
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh wow... at least admit when you're wrong, it wasn't an illusion nor were you trying to be entertaining. I'm sick of your arrogance. (in before 10 paragraphs from you belittling me)
someone said that warcraft macro is harders than brood war macro? cmon dude, the Destro Push scenario is an isolated one, just cause human need very good game sense and attention to deffend a destro push that means that in general that game is harder than this T.T
btw. awesome videos, no need to put war and brood in an arena, both games are beatiful
On January 27 2009 23:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote: someone said that warcraft macro is harders than brood war macro? cmon dude, the Destro Push scenario is an isolated one, just cause human need very good game sense and attention to deffend a destro push that means that in general that game is harder than this T.T
btw. awesome videos, no need to put war and brood in an arena, both games are beatiful
No one mentioned the destroyer push as proof of why WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, or even that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's at all. This leads me to believe that you didn't read the thread at all and only skimmed it.
Had you read, you wouldn't have posted this because in fact in one of my very own references to the example that you're referring to I made a very clear point of saying that it doesn't mean WarCraft 3's macro is even close to StarCraft's level. The only other person referring to this example was Ixion who made similar comments.
Not to sound like a dick, but not reading thoroughly and then posting what you did is really doing much more harm than good and risks starting another senseless argument =[ (although I realize that even giving attention to this comment is a bad thing, I think clarification does more good than harm, hopefully)
Just to clarify once more: no one is saying that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, and the destroyer push example was ONLY used to illustrate that there is a deeper level to WarCraft 3's macro than most are aware of, and was most definitely NOT used to imply that WarCraft 3's level of macro is even close to StarCraft's. No such implications exist.
I've played both bw and war3 a considerable amount. I was always able to get top 50 in the ladder, on iccup I can barely get to c or c+ if I really try hard for a month. Broodwar is infinitely harder in all aspects.
On January 27 2009 23:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote: someone said that warcraft macro is harders than brood war macro? cmon dude, the Destro Push scenario is an isolated one, just cause human need very good game sense and attention to deffend a destro push that means that in general that game is harder than this T.T
btw. awesome videos, no need to put war and brood in an arena, both games are beatiful
No one mentioned the destroyer push as proof of why WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, or even that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's at all. This leads me to believe that you didn't read the thread at all and only skimmed it.
Had you read, you wouldn't have posted this because in fact in one of my very own references to the example that you're referring to I made a very clear point of saying that it doesn't mean WarCraft 3's macro is even close to StarCraft's level. The only other person referring to this example was Ixion who made similar comments.
Not to sound like a dick, but not reading thoroughly and then posting what you did is really doing much more harm than good and risks starting another senseless argument =[ (although I realize that even giving attention to this comment is a bad thing, I think clarification does more good than harm, hopefully)
Just to clarify once more: no one is saying that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, and the destroyer push example was ONLY used to illustrate that there is a deeper level to WarCraft 3's macro than most are aware of, and was most definitely NOT used to imply that WarCraft 3's level of macro is even close to StarCraft's. No such implications exist.
EDIT: Ki_Do, right? =[
pardon, i really feel ashamed, i misread completely the destro push example, i could swear someone said warcrafft macro was harder cause of that scenario, now i re-read and none said that
On January 27 2009 23:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote: someone said that warcraft macro is harders than brood war macro? cmon dude, the Destro Push scenario is an isolated one, just cause human need very good game sense and attention to deffend a destro push that means that in general that game is harder than this T.T
btw. awesome videos, no need to put war and brood in an arena, both games are beatiful
No one mentioned the destroyer push as proof of why WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, or even that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's at all. This leads me to believe that you didn't read the thread at all and only skimmed it.
Had you read, you wouldn't have posted this because in fact in one of my very own references to the example that you're referring to I made a very clear point of saying that it doesn't mean WarCraft 3's macro is even close to StarCraft's level. The only other person referring to this example was Ixion who made similar comments.
Not to sound like a dick, but not reading thoroughly and then posting what you did is really doing much more harm than good and risks starting another senseless argument =[ (although I realize that even giving attention to this comment is a bad thing, I think clarification does more good than harm, hopefully)
Just to clarify once more: no one is saying that WarCraft 3's macro is harder than StarCraft's, and the destroyer push example was ONLY used to illustrate that there is a deeper level to WarCraft 3's macro than most are aware of, and was most definitely NOT used to imply that WarCraft 3's level of macro is even close to StarCraft's. No such implications exist.
EDIT: Ki_Do, right? =[
pardon, i really feel ashamed, i misread completely the destro push example, i could swear someone said warcrafft macro was harder cause of that scenario, now i re-read and none said that
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh give it up, the way you said it made one (likely to) assume that the range of the spell was longer than its normal max-range.
Don't call someone an idiot when he makes a civil post like that, just explain what you meant to say - this is a good thread and there's no need to worsen the atmosphere in this way
Ahhahahh, yeah the game broke itself just for that naga.. Did ANYONE think that it was longer then it's max range because that's not how computers work. FA do you really think the average TL user is that dumb or did you yourself not see how ridiculous what was said is?
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh give it up, the way you said it made one (likely to) assume that the range of the spell was longer than its normal max-range.
Don't call someone an idiot when he makes a civil post like that, just explain what you meant to say - this is a good thread and there's no need to worsen the atmosphere in this way
Ahhahahh, yeah the game broke itself just for that naga.. Did ANYONE think that it was longer then it's max range because that's not how computers work. FA do you really think the average TL user is that dumb or did you yourself not see how ridiculous what was said is?
Its how the fucking game works. Forked lightning range > naga attack range
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh give it up, the way you said it made one (likely to) assume that the range of the spell was longer than its normal max-range.
Don't call someone an idiot when he makes a civil post like that, just explain what you meant to say - this is a good thread and there's no need to worsen the atmosphere in this way
Ahhahahh, yeah the game broke itself just for that naga.. Did ANYONE think that it was longer then it's max range because that's not how computers work. FA do you really think the average TL user is that dumb or did you yourself not see how ridiculous what was said is?
Obviously one would assume you were implying it was some kind of bug - for example, sunken colonies in SC can have their attack range extended if a friendly unit is being attacked nearby (a common example: protoss went for a quick cannon behind the minerals @ zergs expo, zergs sunken is out of range but if the zerg runs a ling in he can temporarily increase the range when the ling gets attacked - I'm not sure exactly how it works since I don't play zerg).
Here is what you initially wrote:
5:27 - The Longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever
The Red NE does some Zeppelin(Dropship) Harassment and when leaving he drops both heroes to take some shots at the Yellow players Zeppelin but Yellows Naga throws The longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever to Kill both heroes. It should be noted that the fact that both of Reds heroes where so low they died to this is indicative of good Zeppelin micro. Also notice as the Zeppelin flying away it teeters to the left and right, clearly drunken with dispair for his fallen brethren.
How the hell are we - as non-WC3 players - meant to assume it means anything but an unusually long Forked Lightning?
If that's not what you meant to say - or indeed, even what was important about the sequence - then just bloody say so, don't launch into some defensive tirade about how we are all idiots when you are the one being misleading (regardless of if it was on purpose or not).
I'm getting pretty sick of your condescending attitude to be honest.
I should try it some day in the distant future, but it'd take a while to get as good as w/ SC. Not even the unit stats or abilities, I'd memorize them in 2 days. It'd be using them in combos.
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
Oh give it up, the way you said it made one (likely to) assume that the range of the spell was longer than its normal max-range.
Don't call someone an idiot when he makes a civil post like that, just explain what you meant to say - this is a good thread and there's no need to worsen the atmosphere in this way
Ahhahahh, yeah the game broke itself just for that naga.. Did ANYONE think that it was longer then it's max range because that's not how computers work. FA do you really think the average TL user is that dumb or did you yourself not see how ridiculous what was said is?
Obviously one would assume you were implying it was some kind of bug - for example, sunken colonies in SC can have their attack range extended if a friendly unit is being attacked nearby (a common example: protoss went for a quick cannon behind the minerals @ zergs expo, zergs sunken is out of range but if the zerg runs a ling in he can temporarily increase the range when the ling gets attacked - I'm not sure exactly how it works since I don't play zerg).
5:27 - The Longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever
The Red NE does some Zeppelin(Dropship) Harassment and when leaving he drops both heroes to take some shots at the Yellow players Zeppelin but Yellows Naga throws The longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever to Kill both heroes. It should be noted that the fact that both of Reds heroes where so low they died to this is indicative of good Zeppelin micro. Also notice as the Zeppelin flying away it teeters to the left and right, clearly drunken with dispair for his fallen brethren.
How the hell are we - as non-WC3 players - meant to assume it means anything but an unusually long Forked Lightning?
If that's not what you meant to say - or indeed, even what was important about the sequence - then just bloody say so, don't launch into some defensive tirade about how we are all idiots when you are the one being misleading (regardless of if it was on purpose or not).
I'm getting pretty sick of your condescending attitude to be honest.
Jesus Christ.. everyone except one guy thanked me for the effort I put into the OP except for this random guy who made a 2 line post to point out what he thought were flaws in the OP in an unencouraging manner...
On January 16 2009 09:37 Hazz wrote: not only was that a normal range forked lightning, the shockwave part was good because it destroyed the tower as soon as it was put down
Do you really think that is a constructive way to communicate??
It reads "Not only were you wrong about this but you were also wrong about this"
And your taking his side because I want to tell this guy to fuck off?
Either show me the condescension in my OP, argue that his post isn't offensive or fuck off and stop singling me out as the aggressor in every thread.
On January 15 2009 15:26 inReacH wrote: 5:27 - The Longest Forked Lightning any Naga has thrown ever
6:29 - AM matrix dodges a shockwave
What's so exciting about a long range forked lighting? Did he do some micro trick to break the set maximum range? Also, I don't know what you mean by AM matrix dodge. I watched it a couple times, and I have no idea what happened.
On January 16 2009 09:20 ExaltedElegance wrote: The Archmage matrix dodge involved using one of his Scout Towers to take the hit of the Shockwave for him.
On January 16 2009 09:20 ExaltedElegance wrote: The Archmage matrix dodge involved using one of his Scout Towers to take the hit of the Shockwave for him.
Nope. The explanation is wrong as well. The shockwave clearly goes through the tower and hits the Archmage. What was nice about the clip was the shockwave killing the Ivory Tower. You can tell that the HU player was towering the Orc due to the presence of militia and the item slots of the AM (He had 3 Ivory Towers). He was putting up Ivory towers, which once placed automatically build themselves very quickly. The shockwave, not the 'dodge' was what was nice. The Orc killed the tower as soon as it was placed down. Had he not used shockwave when he did, the tower would not have been killed in one hit.
And another thing I noticed quickly skimming the explanation. 2:37 - Lightning fast Staff of Preservation to save Archer from Shockwave should actually be saves TWO archers, which is even more impressive.
On January 16 2009 09:37 Hazz wrote: not only was that a normal range forked lightning, the shockwave part was good because it destroyed the tower as soon as it was put down
Hazz was clearly responding to the guy who asked about these two very things (his post was just a few minutes after the guy who answered above him).
You CLEARLY said in your OP that it was "The longest Forked Lightning Ever". Someone (in fact, multiple someones) points out that it was a normal range Forked Lightning. You reply with this:
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
Still maintaining that it was somehow unusually long, or at least it's very easy to read it that way. Hazz replies with this:
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
Which is completely civil. For some reason you decide to have a complete fit over this:
On January 16 2009 14:31 inReacH wrote: About the forked lightning... It's not spectacular for any reason other than it's entertaining and as I said before shows red's good zepp micro that he had both his heroes so low.
To anyone who thinks that wasn't a long forked lightning.. if it wasn't then why would red have dropped his units? I go naga very often and that shit was a STRETCH.
it was just the maximum range, you're used to seeing it closer since naga has a shorter normal attack range than her forked lightning cast range and he dropped his heroes to be cute and it failed
I was just trying to be an entertaining writer..
As a matter of fact the actual length of the lightning itself is longer or has the illusion of being longer than the maximum range on flat ground because it went over the trees.
K THX
Do you realize anyone could infer that it was the maximum range from the implications of me saying the length of it surprised me?
So basically you said something that is obvious and added on something that you think makes you come off as intelligent... and even if you weren't wrong and the trees didn't add length all I was trying to do was appeal to my reader by adding some flavor to my summaries.
...
You know your sick of posters who post out of their ass when you nearly write a paragraph trying to prove to someone he's an idiot.
And you wonder why I'm taking his side? You refuse to give up a completely pointless argument and behave like a condescending prick in the process. Why the fuck shouldn't I take his side?
I didn't say anywhere that your OP was condescending - in fact, I said it was a very good OP. However, you've been nothing but a condescending prick since, for instance, on this very page:
Ahhahahh, yeah the game broke itself just for that naga.. Did ANYONE think that it was longer then it's max range because that's not how computers work. FA do you really think the average TL user is that dumb or did you yourself not see how ridiculous what was said is?
Yes, you made a good thread, great, it's appreciated! But if you can't take one guy criticizing.. in fact, not even criticizing but correcting, one little detail, then you shouldn't be posting.
On January 28 2009 06:54 cava wrote: I've played both bw and war3 a considerable amount. I was always able to get top 50 in the ladder, on iccup I can barely get to c or c+ if I really try hard for a month. Broodwar is infinitely harder in all aspects.
I'd say that this indicates more that ICCup is a higher level ladder than the Battle.net ladders for WC3. Which makes sense really, any idiot with a copy of WC3 can play on Battle.net in a few clicks, while generally ICCup players at least have some interest in competitive SC. You can't really make an accurate judgement of how difficult the two games are to play(although I do agree that BW is harder) without having played at a very high level of competition in both of them.
On January 28 2009 06:54 cava wrote: I've played both bw and war3 a considerable amount. I was always able to get top 50 in the ladder, on iccup I can barely get to c or c+ if I really try hard for a month. Broodwar is infinitely harder in all aspects.
I'd say that this indicates more that ICCup is a higher level ladder than the Battle.net ladders for WC3. Which makes sense really, any idiot with a copy of WC3 can play on Battle.net in a few clicks, while generally ICCup players at least have some interest in competitive SC. You can't really make an accurate judgement of how difficult the two games are to play(although I do agree that BW is harder) without having played at a very high level of competition in both of them.
This.
Only getting top50 in Asia would be considered an achievement. The rest of the ladders are choc full of inferior players.
Here's the deal with war3. Starcraft mentality doesn't work in this game AT ALL. Most pro replays are won and lost off one base. Humans of course will fast expo, and place many many towers to stay under 50 UPKEEP -- meaning they get their full gold income. Oh say and orc player like myself tries to take these expansions down he will be met with footies/ archmage elementals and eventually dragon hawk riders which will kill your catapults. The fact that you lose money when you make a certain amount of units just drives me crazy.
OKAY! I have to make WAY more extra units to take out this human's expansion, OH but wait we're not gonna let you do that, you will LOSE money, so I'm getting 7 gold per carry and the human 20. Catapults do literally no dmg to upgraded towers and three human peasants can repair quicker than 12 scvs!! Oh, and if you wanna expand the map and take 4 expansions that's 20 workers right there, add another 10 for wood and you're hero/units and you're already beyond no upkeep.
If they take off upkeep I know for a fact the starcraft gamers will be able to own it up.
On February 06 2009 03:59 GrkMagas wrote: Here's the deal with war3. Starcraft mentality doesn't work in this game AT ALL. Most pro replays are won and lost off one base. Humans of course will fast expo, and place many many towers to stay under 50 UPKEEP -- meaning they get their full gold income. Oh say and orc player like myself tries to take these expansions down he will be met with footies/ archmage elementals and eventually dragon hawk riders which will kill your catapults. The fact that you lose money when you make a certain amount of units just drives me crazy.
OKAY! I have to make WAY more extra units to take out this human's expansion, OH but wait we're not gonna let you do that, you will LOSE money, so I'm getting 7 gold per carry and the human 20. Catapults do literally no dmg to upgraded towers and three human peasants can repair quicker than 12 scvs!! Oh, and if you wanna expand the map and take 4 expansions that's 20 workers right there, add another 10 for wood and you're hero/units and you're already beyond no upkeep.
If they take off upkeep I know for a fact the starcraft gamers will be able to own it up.
It was a pretty standard Fork of Lightning, I don't see what the giant fuss over it is?
On January 28 2009 06:54 cava wrote: I've played both bw and war3 a considerable amount. I was always able to get top 50 in the ladder, on iccup I can barely get to c or c+ if I really try hard for a month. Broodwar is infinitely harder in all aspects.
Well when the next ladder season rolls around try playing on the pro ladder. The level of competition is high for a shot at the global finals. And I'm sure once they fix up iccup for war3 and people start playing on it you will see the same high level of competition as the SC ladder.
On February 06 2009 03:59 GrkMagas wrote: Here's the deal with war3. Starcraft mentality doesn't work in this game AT ALL. Most pro replays are won and lost off one base. Humans of course will fast expo, and place many many towers to stay under 50 UPKEEP -- meaning they get their full gold income. Oh say and orc player like myself tries to take these expansions down he will be met with footies/ archmage elementals and eventually dragon hawk riders which will kill your catapults. The fact that you lose money when you make a certain amount of units just drives me crazy.
OKAY! I have to make WAY more extra units to take out this human's expansion, OH but wait we're not gonna let you do that, you will LOSE money, so I'm getting 7 gold per carry and the human 20. Catapults do literally no dmg to upgraded towers and three human peasants can repair quicker than 12 scvs!! Oh, and if you wanna expand the map and take 4 expansions that's 20 workers right there, add another 10 for wood and you're hero/units and you're already beyond no upkeep.
If they take off upkeep I know for a fact the starcraft gamers will be able to own it up.
The whole upkeep thing adds to the strategy of the game. I thought you SC elitists claim to have great strategic minds?
Inreach... I think you are one of the most bad mannered posters i have seen here lately. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you most likely start insulting them. That only really makes you look dumber.
But your posts are many times good too, you explain your points pretty well and stuff. And the op was nice.
I looked up condescending from a dictionary, and if i understood it correctly, it suits your posting style well.
Often it seems that you replied only to make the other one feel bad about himself, you are like a bully
The whole upkeep thing adds to the strategy of the game. I thought you SC elitists claim to have great strategic minds?
Upkeep means that the game stays relatively small and manageable. It actually restricts the number of strategies that one can use.
Essentially, it opens up room for crucial "game ending" battles and emphasizes the need to "save" units. Hence why most of these "micro" moves are just "good saves".
In addition, you have skills triggering with %'s. i.e. crit strike.
What does this all mean? You have a small scale battle with less macro, more micro and probability. The three combined decrease the strategic options one can make and increase the probability of a "lucky" play. Whereas these plays may be "amazing" they may not be readily repeatable.
What does this do? It shows preference for one particular type of player and one particular type of play. It's the reason why WC3 play has remained largely the same. When I used to watch WC3 replays the distinction between pros was not strategic, it involved "how they felt on the day" and their accuracy with the mouse. If they pulled off the moves, they won, if not, they lost. There were very few instances of recovery and most "scissors, paper, rock" strategies actually hindered recoverability. The unit mixes and transitions were deterministic. In wc3 it's more about continuing to farm and micro well to gain a slight upper edge that will help you win that "decisive" aforementioned battle (above) then using the appropriate timing with an appropriate unit mix (such as sc). And NO "wc3 elitists", rushing is not TIMING!
This is just my opinion... it's not final and it's debatable.
On February 06 2009 11:03 MuR)Ernu wrote: Inreach... I think you are one of the most bad mannered posters i have seen here lately. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you most likely start insulting them. That only really makes you look dumber.
But your posts are many times good too, you explain your points pretty well and stuff. And the op was nice.
I looked up condescending from a dictionary, and if i understood it correctly, it suits your posting style well.
Often it seems that you replied only to make the other one feel bad about himself, you are like a bully
Be nicer please
Yes I agree completely, I am very often condescending.
The difference is this is a forum where any thread presence is completely voluntary.
There is a big difference between being a black belt and walking into a dojo and looking down on a bunch of beginners compared to some guy who knows nothing about a subject posting his misinformation for people to read. I really have no patience for ignorance when it is accompanied with anything other than humility.
The worst part is that in this thread is that some are being ignorant and critical/dismissive, which I don't think many people would disagree is the worst kind. It's the same mindset as racism, it's not against a people thank god, but it still bothers me.
I've played both bw and war3 a considerable amount. I was always able to get top 50 in the ladder, on iccup I can barely get to c or c+ if I really try hard for a month. Broodwar is infinitely harder in all aspects.
Even though people already responded to this, I just want to add that no current top 20 player would have been even a top 500 ranked player in the old days. The matchmaking system is no longer based on skill, but how many games one can mass, and with the degraded skill, a mediocre player can get top 10 by just playing 400 games. No one good has really used the ladder since 1.14, which was like 4 years ago. The new matchmaking service (ever leave your computer on all night searching for a match and wake up with none found?) + WoW + the rise of DOTA + stale map pool completely killed off the ladder, so basically all the "good" players would go to the europe or asia ladders but those ladders have degraded in skill so much that they no longer even do that. They either play each other on Garena or custom games.
Blizzard was supposed to release a patch 2.5 years to overhaul the AMM and the map pool and still haven't, and now it's at the point where the game will have a userbase the size of Warcraft 2 after SC2 is released.
Anyways, very nice video, haven't seen it before, some spots look staged that aren't credited in the details.
For example, the wand of illusion lich surround. The army is nowhere near the lich, and it's running away from the well which I would assume is to return to its base on the left hand side of lost temple. Looks ridiculously staged. Why is their 1 random ghoul there? Where is the DK? Why would the lich be running away from the well alone. Also I'm 95% sure Wand of illusion does NOT drop on lost temple anywhere. But whatever it's late I'm probably just being retarded.
On February 06 2009 11:03 MuR)Ernu wrote: Inreach... I think you are one of the most bad mannered posters i have seen here lately. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you most likely start insulting them. That only really makes you look dumber.
But your posts are many times good too, you explain your points pretty well and stuff. And the op was nice.
I looked up condescending from a dictionary, and if i understood it correctly, it suits your posting style well.
Often it seems that you replied only to make the other one feel bad about himself, you are like a bully
Be nicer please
Yes I agree completely, I am very often condescending.
The difference is this is a forum where any thread presence is completely voluntary.
There is a big difference between being a black belt and walking into a dojo and looking down on a bunch of beginners compared to some guy who knows nothing about a subject posting his misinformation for people to read. I really have no patience for ignorance when it is accompanied with anything other than humility.
The worst part is that in this thread is that some are being ignorant and critical/dismissive, which I don't think many people would disagree is the worst kind. It's the same mindset as racism, it's not against a people thank god, but it still bothers me.
Welcome to the internet.
Anyways, if your readers see that your text is well written, people will naturally be more respectful. Unless they are trolling/idiots.
And when people are ignorant and stuff, well, it is better to just tell them that in a calm manner and possibly even explain/elaborate the stuff they clearly don't understand.
Or just ignoring them.
Hating on them just brings up more hate from everybody X)
On February 05 2009 19:39 FrozenArbiter wrote: WCReplays.com There's already a poster called Grey or Grayfox (or f0x) or something there tho xD!! I think anyway, it seems so familiar.
EPT
