|
On February 06 2004 08:21 intotherei wrote:
look, follow me here, try not to get lost, its not that hard to keep up
-2 players have exact micro and exact macro
-both players have very good micro/macro
-1 player creeps and gets a crystal ball as a drop, the other creeps and gets something like unholy aura or endurance aura
-the unholy aura player GOT LUCKY and will win most likely simply because he got the better drop, this is how war3 is currently
there is no "consistency" with item drops, they are random and 1 player will luck out over the other. thus the closer players get to perfectoin, the more the wc3 is based on luck factors
ok, last attmept by me.
I said: The game is based off of luck for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Item drops. The *point* of the *rest* of what i said was that the *closer you are to perfecting your game* and the *more people that can achieve that level* the *more consistant* the game will be. This means *neglecting all other aspects of the game, such as ITEM DROPS, and RANDOM DAMAGE, the game is MORE CONSISTANT*. I really hop u GET it this time.
i understood what you said, it was clear and it was concise. the only flaw in your argument here is that you assume i dont know understand what you mean hence i musnt be able to understand what insom means, when i clearly understand what both of you meant, and my lack of a rebuttal was not due to not understanding but rather due to laziness
You * didn't * understand what i said. And you took insomnia's words literally. Whether he meant them literally or not is what should be debated. I personally * don't * think he meant them literally. You and alot of others apparently do. Do you have *any reason* to take them literally? Cause i provided the reasons why i * didn't *.
how does war3 reward intelligence? do tier3 units always beat tier1 units? no (unless you go tauren w/ orc)
does going anti casters beat a player who goes casters? no (unless you go faerie dragons w/ night elf)
according to another person in this thread, who is better than both you *and* me at war3, says those counters are wrong. There you go, refuted.
no one mentioned chess, perhaps you got this impression from the other post. chess does have more strategy than brood war, but is it because it is a slower game? i doubt it seeing as how there ARE time limits in chess. warcraft 3 has less strategy because the counters are not defined well enough, alot of people dont even scout in warcraft 3.. because it doesnt matter because you already know what youre going to do, and chances are that if you are the better player you will win not because of "strategy" (remember you are pretty much already set in your build order) but rather because you can micro better / faster etc etc
Oh boy. No one else mentioned chess, *i* did. I did this because you did not understand the difference between 'superior strategy' and 'superior game'. I got the impression that when i said 'war3 requries *more* strategy' you thought that i was saying 'war3 is better than starcraft'. I was not. In addition, i got the impression that you thought i was saying 'luck is not a factor in war3'. I did not say that. Infact, i strongly believe that luck is a *huge* factor in warcraft 3, which * does * make the game inferior to starcraft.
this is an assumption, thus it bears no validity =[
This assumption proved to be correct as i have had to repeat exactly what i said in the first place in different words so that you could understand me. I really hope you understand me this time, i don't think i could put it any further into lamens terms.
|
United States4471 Posts
On February 06 2004 12:20 -zX-Ravage- wrote: I've only read through the first 3 or so pages so this may be redundant.. 1. As many of you know this guy played a ton of BW and was very good at it, so he does understand both games as well as anyone. Probably better than you.. 2. By perfection if you're retarded and take that literally (hi, everyone on this thread including cyric).. He's referring to the fundamental "skill" parts of the game like micro/macro.. It's fairly easy to not unnecessarily lose units, and even easier to keep your excess low throughout the game.. This puts a "skill cap" on W3 that did not exist for BW, which just means there are more people with 'enough' natural talent to be good, creating a bigger "top" player population.. I guess one parallel is APM.. Some people just arent physically capable of getting 200+ APM (or arent capable of simultaneously doing micro/macro at the same time).. People like this might be able to do so in W3, and will be able to compete at high lvls of play.. Luck? Yes of course, but thats true for BW as well. Also strategic moves and counters all play in.. It becomes more who has the better strategy than the other in w3.. Whereas in BW if the skill differential was big enough strategy could be overcome by speed/ability etc Though I personally still feel BW is a better game, i can completely understand where hes coming from.. And jesus christ, i think 99% of you have never played war3 (and getting your ass kicked a few times does not count) so why the fuck are you even talking.. You're all bitching about how gamespy picked total annihilation over BW as the best RTS, and you are all doing the exact same thing here.. ignorant statements backed by personal bias 
1. Yes he was good and knows a lot about SC/BW, which is why everyone is so surprised by his statements. Just because a player was skilled at a game, it doesn't mean that he/she is infallible when it comes to everything concerning the game. It also doesn't mean that his arguments are all of sudden better than what he wrote.
2. I understood the usage of "perfection" just fine. It's his usage of it as a means to criticize SC/BW that I have a problem with. Having a skill cap is not a good thing, I don't see how you can see a competitive game having one as a good thing at all. What you just discussed (the creation of a larger pool of top tier players, more people having "natural talent" to be good) is exactly what people mean when they say that WC3 is a "newbified".
How does a game being easier to master make it better? Maybe I'm weird, but I like the idea of a game that no one can master and where there is no limit as to how much you can learn. I also like the idea of a game where it's difficult to become good, so that when you're top tier it actually counts for something. The supposed "top level competition" you're proposing isn't really anything impressive if any random person can hit that level.
There is no "talent" in the scenario you describe. "Talent" implies a sort of exclusive, rare ability that few have or will be able to achieve, not something that results from a limit on the amount of growth that's allowed.
It is true that luck exists in both games. However, it is the opinion of many critics of the game that the degree to which luck decides a game in WC3 is higher than in SC/BW, and more than should be in a good, competitive RTS. This is up to each person to decide for themselves, but I admit to leaning toward SC/BW as being less luck-based.
As to the level of quality of the posts in this thread, I agree with you. Doesn't make Mr.X's opinion any better or WC3 any better than SC/BW. And, again, people please pay particular attention to the fact that he said that WC3 was obviously better than SC/BW, not that it was a close match (which it is at the very least).
|
On February 06 2004 08:27 Taguchi wrote:
Teroru I really think your idea of getting closer to perfection is easier in this game thus the game is better than another which is more difficult to become near perfect at(absolute perfection is a mirage yes) is fundamentally flawed.
In the competition level, having a chance to improve(get even nearer perfection) is what makes a sport better, spectator and player wise. Would people enjoy football as much as they do if all they ever saw was perfect crosses, always on target shots or nigh impossible saves? You'd know what would happen beforehand, so why bother with it?
I did not say war3 was better. I said the competition in war3 will be higher and more abundant. I 100% agree with your opinion on sport.
From the players' point of view, how would they try harder at their sport if they knew a great number of people could easily get really close to their level? There'd just be only superstars, which in itself makes superstardom obsolete, doesnt it? And then the sport'd degenerate.
agreed.
Closeness to perfection means stability and repetitiveness, which create boredom, which dont make for a good sport.
Nada, Nal_ra, Boxer, and Yellow, are as close to being perfect at starcraft than any other player. I do not find their games to be repititive or boring.
I am not debating whether 'stability and repetitiveness create boredom', but only 'closeness to perfection means stability and repetitiveness'.
And btw, how can you assume on mrx's intelligence, and obvious at that, while you have to rephrase his statement so as not to make it totally wrong(i find the rephrasal wrong as well, but thats just my opinion) and the rest of us cant say the original statement is stupid? He was a great starcraft player a couple of years ago, when the game wasnt really evolved much and he got to two kbk tournaments, does that automatically make him obviously intelligent? He might just have had great micro for his time or some good unit combinations which the others didnt know how to counter yet, that doesnt make him obviously intelligent. 
I believe you are wrong in your statement that 'the game wasn't really evolved much'. Mr.X is one of the smartest players in the world. (in his strategy). He didn't rely on 1 strategy to carry him through games, nor did he rely on perfect macro or speed to overwhelm his opponent. He used his brain to win games.
That is why i assumed he had intelligence. If he exudes intelligence in the style that he plays, then i would assume that his performance/style isnt a fluke that occurs in every single game he played over the 3-4 years he played this game. Intelligence isn't random. either you have it, or you don't.
I would like you to point out why my rephrasal was wrong. I don't see the flaw of logic in my rephrasel, so if you could it out to me, i'd be more than willing to change it.
hope this wasnt brainless flaming!
Wasn't brainless at all. You told me what you thought and *why* you thought it. Perfect response; i couldn't ask for any better. (except for comma's in your frist paragraph. i had to reread it like 4 times before i understand what u were saying)
|
On February 06 2004 08:31 intotherei wrote: Show nested quote +On February 06 2004 08:06 Filthy. wrote:
this forum is full of retards.
people like w3 because u micro for 95% of the game where as in bw u stand around doing nothing with ur units for 80% of the game.
i wont try and say why i think its better but i will say that nobody hear should say why its worse when they clearly havent played it much and u make statements about the game that are completley false
for example aseq almost everything u said about w3 is wrong whats the first thing you do in bw? your split, instant micro right off the bat. theres nothing like that in war3, the first time you have to micro in war3 is maybe like 3 minutes into the game where your peons might be getting harassed or something. if you do nothing with your units for 80% of the game, you must not win very much 
actually, filthy is one of the best 2v2'rs in the world.
|
|
|
On February 06 2004 08:41 intotherei wrote: Show nested quote +On February 06 2004 08:38 Filthy. wrote:
just go watch a rep then and see how often ur attacking - if its more than 20% of the time i would be very surprised your flame is obviously ur stupidity showing through if you say 20% of the time is attacking in brood war, its even less in war3 war3 is usually 1 battle, whoever loses that battle loses the game. not like that in brodo war buddy. watch some high lvl bw replays then war3 replays, youd be surprised
i'm not very experienced at war3, but i DO know enough to know that the game rarely ever revolves around 1 single battle.
And in broodwar, it's not uncommon that if u lose a major battle, the game is over.
|
|
|
|
|
ok, last attmept by me.
I said: The game is based off of luck for 1 reason and 1 reason alone. Item drops. The *point* of the *rest* of what i said was that the *closer you are to perfecting your game* and the *more people that can achieve that level* the *more consistant* the game will be. This means *neglecting all other aspects of the game, such as ITEM DROPS, and RANDOM DAMAGE, the game is MORE CONSISTANT*. I really hop u GET it this time. im not even going to bother with this unless you really clear it up, your english makes it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say. replace consistent in "the more consistent the game will be" with something else because it doesnt make sense.
consistent means unchanging, "3 : tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated as the sample becomes large <a consistent statistical estimator>"
Synonyms SAME 3, constant, invariable, unchanging, unfailing, unvarying
if everyone is near the perfect level of micro, the game becomes less consistent because then the winner is very likely to be the winner due to item drops, BUT
if the skill levels are spread out, the winners are more likely to be the person with higher skill.
You idn't* understand what i said. And you took insomnia's words literally. Whether he meant them literally or not is what should be debated. I personally on't* think he meant them literally. You and alot of others apparently do. Do you have *any reason* to take them literally? Cause i provided the reasons why i * didn't *. why wouldnt they be literal, did he speak in a sarcastic tone, did he say "lol" at the end?
according to another person in this thread, who is better than both you *and* me at war3, says those counters are wrong. There you go, refuted. you dont know how good i am at war3 or brood war,
and yes my counters are correct. faerie dragons rape casters, spellbreakers, destroyers, and spirit walkers do not. dont believe me? go to blizzard forums and see for yourself.
its genreally very well known that tauren are the best tier3 melee and that knights and aboms suck and that druid are very G_G
Oh boy. No one else mentioned chess, *i* did. I did this because you did not understand the difference between 'superior strategy' and 'superior game'. I got the impression that when i said 'war3 requries *more* strategy' you thought that i was saying 'war3 is better than starcraft'. I was not. In addition, i got the impression that you thought i was saying 'luck is not a factor in war3'. I did not say that. Infact, i strongly believe that luck is a *huge* factor in warcraft 3, which * does * make the game inferior to starcraft. i understand just fine that thaving more strategy doesnt make it a better game. what you dont seem to understand is that we all think, or KNOW rather, that brood war is BOTH a better game than warcraft 3, and has more strategy than warcraft 3. no one ever made the correlation of having more strategy to better game, not that it matters... brood war wins hands down tt
This assumption proved to be correct as i have had to repeat exactly what i said in the first place in different words so that you could understand me. I really hope you understand me this time, i don't think i could put it any further into lamens terms. nope incorrect, as again you assumed i didnt think what you meant above, and i knew perfectly what you meant, yet you make comments on what you think i think when its just not true.
|
On February 06 2004 14:04 Teroru wrote: Show nested quote +On February 06 2004 08:41 intotherei wrote: On February 06 2004 08:38 Filthy. wrote:
just go watch a rep then and see how often ur attacking - if its more than 20% of the time i would be very surprised your flame is obviously ur stupidity showing through if you say 20% of the time is attacking in brood war, its even less in war3 war3 is usually 1 battle, whoever loses that battle loses the game. not like that in brodo war buddy. watch some high lvl bw replays then war3 replays, youd be surprised i'm not very experienced at war3, but i DO know enough to know that the game rarely ever revolves around 1 single battle. And in broodwar, it's not uncommon that if u lose a major battle, the game is over.
then go watch progamer brood war replays and watch 1 player get totally raped and make a maner comeback (happens quite often in brood war )
|
On February 05 2004 23:52 Teroru wrote: Show nested quote +On February 05 2004 23:28 Hot_Bid wrote:
In my opinion, the greater you allow for skill differentiation, the greater the game. Then the sports of hockey, soccer, cycling, swimming, lacrosse, basketball, and baseball are all automatically and simultaneously inferior to the Decathalon. Odd how all of those sports are somehow more enjoyed and watched than the decathalon.
Not quite sure there is any reason to agree with you. I dont know if you want to agree, but all the sports you listed have a skill spectrum that is constantly being redefined and difficult to reach. These are games/sports that have been around for decades+, and should have been 'mastered' by now, and arent.
Like pumpkin said I was a 2 week Wc3 user, and i hated it immediately. So my Wc3 knowledge is limited and perhaps even biased, but i did gather one very important aspect from it. It did require ONLY micro and tactics to determine the game. It almost completely eliminated macro and its very important role in previous RTSs.
Just because of that, my opinion is that Wc3 > BW is a false statement. Because in all honesty, even though Wc3 has a focuss on microing, i never had the feeling that is was anymore difficult. I felt like a micro god while i played, because i was doing things that seemed much more difficult in BW (thanks to smart casting). I would agree with those that look down the end of their nose, that smart casting was just 1 of many many newbie friendly additions.
Plus add the remarks on this thread that agree as a spectators game, BW takes the cake (hence more fun to play and watch....). Thats a 2-0 score in BW's favor imo, and graphics dont do enough for me.
|
|
|
On February 06 2004 14:14 intotherei wrote:
and yes my counters are correct. faerie dragons rape casters, spellbreakers, destroyers, and spirit walkers do not. dont believe me? go to blizzard forums and see for yourself.
I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of the post, but PLEASE don't base anything off of the Blizzard forums. The people there have almost as bad of an idea of War3 as most of the people here do. The only difference is, they actually play the game (but aren't very skilled), and think they understand it, while the people here generally haven't, and think they understand it. Occasionally you'll see a couple high-levelled players or others who have an idea of what they're talking about, but those forums are NOT packed with very intelligent posts.
|
On February 06 2004 15:29 Orlandu wrote: Show nested quote +On February 06 2004 14:14 intotherei wrote:
and yes my counters are correct. faerie dragons rape casters, spellbreakers, destroyers, and spirit walkers do not. dont believe me? go to blizzard forums and see for yourself.
I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of the post, but PLEASE don't base anything off of the Blizzard forums. The people there have almost as bad of an idea of War3 as most of the people here do. The only difference is, they actually play the game (but aren't very skilled), and think they understand it, while the people here generally haven't, and think they understand it. Occasionally you'll see a couple high-levelled players or others who have an idea of what they're talking about, but those forums are NOT packed with very intelligent posts. ok so do you want me to direct to you the 4k.bond vs beyblade replay where 4k.bond tps to his main and loses his entier army except for his 2 heroes at 50% health simply because beyblade had 4 faerie dragons in mana flare mode?
|
On February 06 2004 14:14 intotherei wrote:im not even going to bother with this unless you really clear it up, your english makes it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say. replace consistent in "the more consistent the game will be" with something else because it doesnt make sense. consistent means unchanging, "3 : tending to be arbitrarily close to the true value of the parameter estimated as the sample becomes large <a consistent statistical estimator>" Synonyms SAME 3, constant, invariable, unchanging, unfailing, unvarying if everyone is near the perfect level of micro, the game becomes less consistent because then the winner is very likely to be the winner due to item drops, BUT if the skill levels are spread out, the winners are more likely to be the person with higher skill.
I was talking about a concept, not about warcraft 3. If you have a game like chess, players that are better will be more consistant in there wins. In a game like starcraft where many other factors affect the game other than strategy, you will have less consistancy. I know this because i beat alot of players who are better than i am. I've beaten the likes of Nazgul, Eriador, and Veg. I also know that i am nowhere near their level. However, when i play a chess player who is better than me, i rarely ever pull out a victory.
why wouldnt they be literal, did he speak in a sarcastic tone, did he say "lol" at the end?
Few people say what they mean. Normally they lack the communication skills to say exactly what they mean. (Apparently used in the place of Supposedly for example. They mean different things, but are often confused with one another.) Knowing this, and that mr.x is intelligent would logically lead me to believe that he did not infact mean what he said. I have no proof or certainty of this, only my logic. I said that in my very first post i believe.
On top of that; i don't believe anyone would purposely say something they didn't mean. If a person is not aware of their miscomminucation, why would they put 'lol' at the end?
you dont know how good i am at war3 or brood war,
and yes my counters are correct. faerie dragons rape casters, spellbreakers, destroyers, and spirit walkers do not. dont believe me? go to blizzard forums and see for yourself.
its genreally very well known that tauren are the best tier3 melee and that knights and aboms suck and that druid are very G_G
GG? You originally posted that the counters in war3 are stupid. So how is an anti-caster unit countering casters stupid?
Stupid. adj.
1)Slow to learn or understand
2)Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes
3)Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless
4)Dazed, stunned, or stupefied
5)Pointless; worthless
1)I do not find 'anti-caster countering casters' confusing to learn or understand.
2)I do not find 'anti-casters countering casters' a poor decision or careless mistake.
3)I do not find 'anti-casters countering casters' a lack of intelligence or care. Infact, it's the opposite. It makes perfect sense.
4)I do not find 'anti-casters countering casters' dazing, or stunning, or stupifying.
5)I do not think that countering casters with anit-casters is pointless or worthless.
Being that u did not put 'lol' at the end of using the word stupid, i will assume that you intentionally used that word. And the counters in war3 are not 'stupid'.
i understand just fine that thaving more strategy doesnt make it a better game. what you dont seem to understand is that we all think, or KNOW rather, that brood war is BOTH a better game than warcraft 3, and has more strategy than warcraft 3. no one ever made the correlation of having more strategy to better game, not that it matters... brood war wins hands down tt
If warcraft3 requires 50% strategy, 5% speed, 1% multitasking, 25% micro, and 20% luck
and then starcraft requires 30% strategy, 20% multitasking, 20% speed, 25% micro and 5% luck
then warcraft3 requires more strategy.
I will not proclaim that those percentages are without flaw, only my on-the-spot opinion. However, because starcraft's other factors *are* more important to the game, i will always find warcraft3 with a higher % of strategy.
nope incorrect, as again you assumed i didnt think what you meant above, and i knew perfectly what you meant, yet you make comments on what you think i think when its just not true.
actually, you said my use of 'consistancy' was not correct. Whether it was used correctly is irrelevant; the fact that you didn't agree with the use of it means you didn't understand me.
If i used it correctly, then you didn't understand what i said.
If i used it incorrectly, then you didnt understand what i meant.
either way, i was right: you didnt understand me.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Teroru:
50% of say 100 is smaller than 30% of 200.
So you can't really put it that way!
Oh you said it requires a higher percentage of the total skill required to play it. Still that doesn't mean it's more strategy :O
|
On February 06 2004 15:36 intotherei wrote: Show nested quote +On February 06 2004 15:29 Orlandu wrote: On February 06 2004 14:14 intotherei wrote:
and yes my counters are correct. faerie dragons rape casters, spellbreakers, destroyers, and spirit walkers do not. dont believe me? go to blizzard forums and see for yourself.
I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of the post, but PLEASE don't base anything off of the Blizzard forums. The people there have almost as bad of an idea of War3 as most of the people here do. The only difference is, they actually play the game (but aren't very skilled), and think they understand it, while the people here generally haven't, and think they understand it. Occasionally you'll see a couple high-levelled players or others who have an idea of what they're talking about, but those forums are NOT packed with very intelligent posts. ok so do you want me to direct to you the 4k.bond vs beyblade replay where 4k.bond tps to his main and loses his entier army except for his 2 heroes at 50% health simply because beyblade had 4 faerie dragons in mana flare mode?
mana flare splash damage was decreased in the last patch
bond deserved it anyways because your're not supposed to tp into mana flare
if broodwar had tp's then it would be the equivalent of tping into a bunch of lurkers
|
To Teroru(the post'd get really big with quotes, so for reminders just read the previous msgs :p )
I was kind of defending some people's flaming mrx's statement of war3 being better than bw because so and so, if you were only talking about the abundancy of higher level of competition we're talking about different things -_-;
Nada and the rest are RELATIVELY better than anyone else on starcraft. But on starcraft there is no (easily attainable at least)limit cap, or so we claim, so nada and the rest might be very far away from perfection in absolute terms (which is what I said creates boredom and repetitiveness), so that argument doesnt really hold sway (or maybe it does, might be I'm missing something )
If I remember correctly, mrx was at his best during 2000 and early/mid 2001, watch some vods from that period and you'll see what I'm talking about the game being at its early stages
Btw I kind of think that mrx MUST be an intelligent guy since I firmly believe that bw skill comes with intelligence, but I cant be especially sure of that given that all I know(and probably you know) about him is his 2000/2001 accomplishments, him being a very very good war3 player, and that little statement at the start of the thread.
Cyrix pretty much describes what I feel about the rest of this subject quite well.
|
On February 06 2004 15:59 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Teroru:
50% of say 100 is smaller than 30% of 200.
So you can't really put it that way!
Oh you said it requires a higher percentage of the total skill required to play it. Still that doesn't mean it's more strategy :O
Very true. good point.
So what are the real numbers? Do you think that a person who has never played starcraft in their life will think that Starcraft requires the same amount of strategy as you or i do? Do you think that a person who has played starcraft on BGH for a year will understand how much strategy the game truly requires? Do you think that *i* or yourself know how much strategy the game requires in comparison to boxer or nada know?
And finally, do you think there is a single war3 player how knows as much about war3 as nada or boxer does about starcraft?
|
War3 has less luck cause you engage so early you cannot hide any gimmic strat. Kind of like zvz 12vs3 but with units who can take more hits than zerglings thus decreasing the luckfactor(ie one zergling getting through and killing 2 drones, ending the game).
Ps. Imagine a game where both players play with maphack. Then there can be no luck cause you have all the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
