What Mr.X aka Insomnia has to say about BW and WC3

On February 05 2004 09:08 sage.francis wrote:
he says with bw it's impossible to play it at it's best, so i guess he means that with war3 its possible to play it at it's best? so that means if two players are both playing at their best then the game boils down to just luck?

On February 05 2004 09:08 sage.francis wrote:
he says with bw it's impossible to play it at it's best, so i guess he means that with war3 its possible to play it at it's best? so that means if two players are both playing at their best then the game boils down to just luck?

On February 05 2004 11:20 Hot_Bid wrote:
what he means is he's not good enough at broodwar.

On February 05 2004 08:21 Macrophage wrote:
Insomnia: WAR3 is much better, in BW it's impossible to play the game at it's best, because there are so many things to do.

On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun?

On February 05 2004 12:48 fOgoTTeN-SupeR wrote:


True, but you have to admit he was probably some chobo fux0r

On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun?

On February 05 2004 12:55 radiaL wrote:
he finds War3 more fun eh...

hm, i never really play BW for fun anymore.. i guess i only did back in money maps. Right now it's more than that - it's like a testament against your own abilities, can you outdo your own previous maximum, be that apm, macro, micro, creativity, etc. I've palyed war3 quite a lot and never had a feeling that, like it was hard to play.. it was more like relaxing, sorta like CS, but less so. In SC before i start a game i fucking feel it - it's gonna be damn fucking hard, and sometimes you know that even if you play your absolute best, you will be outclassed and lose.

guess that's what keep me coming back :O

On February 05 2004 13:26 mindspike wrote:


this is the internet
bashing and flaming are a sport

On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun?

On February 05 2004 12:48 fOgoTTeN-SupeR wrote:


True, but you have to admit he was probably some chobo fux0r

On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun?

On February 05 2004 12:29 SoL.Origin wrote:

This guy obviously doesn't have NaDa's multitasking abilities. GG OWNED!!!!!

On February 05 2004 14:35 Casper... wrote:
sk pays him
he spits out the company line
you are all apes

On February 05 2004 13:33 SickofLife322000 wrote:


We can, and will.

On February 05 2004 14:54 Taguchi wrote:


Dude stating your opinion is fine and all, but here mrx states that perfection can be achieved in war3 while it cant in starcraft, thus war3 is better! This is like the best argument FOR starcraft being better as a competitive game than war3, so yeah we can call his opinion idiotic, moronic and whatever else, without making any conclusions about him as a person in the meantime of course

On February 05 2004 16:19 mindspike wrote:


i like how you think that you know everything
there is no company line
sk is just a rag tag clan

this is the first time ive heard a former top bw player turned wc3 player say that wc is the better game

On February 05 2004 16:10 Teroru wrote:
mr.x is better at bw than every single person in this thread.

Orlandu proves once again that he is incredibly intelligent/wise and that his patience is immeasurable when dealing with inferior minds.

Until you understand war3 at the same level you understand bw, u cannot possibly compare the 2.

On February 05 2004 08:28 PheeRed.User wrote:
....lets all bash on him cause he doesent think like us!

On February 05 2004 11:37 IcedEarth wrote:
SC/BW is 2nd best, according to gamespy, but they have about as much clue about what they're saying as Mr.X does.

On February 05 2004 15:24 SoleSteeler wrote:
like i said... you can't reach your limit in war3.. show me someone who has, or a replay of perfect play and prove me wrong

there's ALWAYS room for improvement

On February 05 2004 16:58 Orlandu wrote:


I never expected such a compliment, but it is much appreciated

On February 05 2004 17:53 green-tea wrote:
DOUBLE YU TEE EFF MATES!!!!!!!! Whats wrong with game spy??!?!?! If it was only the second best RTS how come it's become one of the national forms of entertainment in Korea? NOt to mentions millions of people are still playing it even though it's 6 or 7 yeas old.

On February 05 2004 13:49 Muhweli wrote:
lollerz, this is like saying simple things are always better. I think that in the world of gaming, the more there is to master the better... ffs :D And I respected mr.x for his nice z usage at the time of bw.

However I see why he is backing wc3 up... he has made shitload of money with it.

On February 05 2004 14:54 Taguchi wrote:


Dude stating your opinion is fine and all, but here mrx states that perfection can be achieved in war3 while it cant in starcraft, thus war3 is better! This is like the best argument FOR starcraft being better as a competitive game than war3, so yeah we can call his opinion idiotic, moronic and whatever else, without making any conclusions about him as a person in the meantime of course

It will be less based off of luck and speed, and more so on consistancy.

To call him an idiot for believeing what he believes when he is justified in believing it, is wrong. Especially when you didnt even grasp what he was trying to say in the first place.

So what's the better game? One that rewards speed *and* intelligence or just intelligence?

I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all).

I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all).

On February 05 2004 17:59 green-tea wrote:
Ya but it's a lot lot lot easier to play a game almost totally perfectly, I have one replay between Kenshin.Werra and Linyu)BadPlayer in which Kenshin played "perfectly" or near that, but it's version 1.05 classic.

On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote:
incorrect.

if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.

we grasped it, its wrong.

war3 doesnt reward intelligence.. the counters in that game are so stupid.

it should, as a foundatoin, it should then need other skills LIKE speed to be better. otherwise why not make bw /wc3 turn based? weeeeee fun right? yea thats what i thought --

On February 05 2004 19:06 BlueShift wrote:


You should play chess then. How fun is chess to play or watch? Not nearly as fun as BW but it's a game that is based entirely on strategy. Speed and precision is what makes brood war better than WC3, because now a person not only has to be smart but have the ability to think on his feet while constantly clicking and pressing keys. In WC3 you can literaly stop and think in mid game while your armies march around killing creeps, no such luxary is afforded in BW.

On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote:
incorrect.

if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.

On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote:
incorrect.

if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.

WAR3 is a much more advanced game in every way.

in BW it's impossible to play the game at it's best, because there are so many things to do.

On February 05 2004 18:04 Teroru wrote:


did u pronounce the comma's in what he said?? if not, do so.

And if u did, then u completely missed what he's saying. He didn't say he agreed with gamespy, he said that gamespy say's its only 2nd best.

You supported his criticization of gamespy by agreeing with him. He said gamespy is too inept to acknowledge that bw is the best rts. You tried to point out that *he* was inept for the very same reason.

On February 05 2004 20:49 radiaL wrote:
Teroru, as you seem to somehow amazingly comprehend what Insomnia is saying, what exactly did he mean by
maybe there is an undermeaning to this statement that I am missing? Wouldn't that directly neutralize his previous statement of If something gets more advanced, it usually gets harder to comprehend/do/etc?

On February 05 2004 20:28 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Mr.X aka Insomniac is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. However, his reasons for his opinion were clearly flawed from the way he stated them, the people in this thread trying to defend him are just trying to read into what they hopeed he meant. Being able to achieve perfection in WC3? Being able to achieve perfection means a game is clearly better? Please.

The main problem I have with what I read in the initial post is that he states that it's obvious that WC3 is better than SC/BW. He makes a pretty strong statement but provides very weak (or stupid) support for it.

If he can make a comment like that with the reasoning he provided, then I don't see why the people on the forum can't bash him with similarly bad backup/reasoning.

P.S. As to the item dropping in WC3, it IS random to a certain extent. Sure items have their own levels and so you can have a reasonable expectation of what you might get from a given creep, but the issue has always whether some items were put at the correct levels and the fact that some items, although equal in usefulness generally, are more useful in different situations, with different heroes, and different strategies. The fact that it's a relatively uncontrollable variable that can tip the balance in a match is what makes some people dislike item dropping in WC3.

On February 05 2004 23:28 Hot_Bid wrote:
In my opinion, the greater you allow for skill differentiation, the greater the game.

On February 05 2004 23:28 Hot_Bid wrote:
Anyone think if Nada played War3 seriously for 2 months he'd rape the shit out of Insomnia, or at least be close to his level of "perfection"?

In my opinion, the greater you allow for skill differentiation, the greater the game.

Also, speed is very important in chess, whoever brought up that analogy, even in an untimed game. You can't separate speed from intelligence in strategy games because to be physically fast you have to be able to think fast (what action or strategy to do next, etc).

I think part of what makes Brood War fun is the "how did he do that?? that's crazy!!" aspect of watching it. I played War3 for a couple months, did pretty well, but I never got the same kind of feeling from playing or watching War3 games and replays.

Perhaps what Insomnia means by "more advanced" is the stuff like binding multiple buildings to one hotkey, autocast, etc. In his opinion these things are "more advanced."

On February 05 2004 23:24 Teroru wrote:

ur exactly right. I clearly wrote it "i wish he meant...". I didn't say *thats what he means*. Im saying that based on his obvious intelligence, i would wish and hope he meant something different, and i voiced it.

I find it hard to comprehend that someone who has obvious high intelligence would honestly believe that u can be perfect at everything. Whether its war3, bw, or whatever the fuck else crosses ur mind.

Cyric, i nearly always affirm with what you say. But i must give pause if u believe that ones lack of reasons for his opinion is justification for anothers lack of reasons in theirs. If one is inherrantly wrong, the other is as well. Despite his lacking skills in communication, i *was* trying to bring the level up a notch by not being arbitrary. Apparently i fucked up.

I owe an apology to the lot of you: go back to your mindless flaming, the majority supports it, so it must be A-OK!.

On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun?

On February 06 2004 04:18 Macrophage wrote:
i couldnt read all thats written here but i find this interesting:
bw and strategy games in general are no more BASED on intelligence than any first person shooter. on high lvl bw can sometimes, seldomly, have something to do with intelligence, more then high lvl fps, but average bw player certainly uses his mind less than high lvl fps player :>.
and wc3/tft doenst require intelligence almost at all. you may anticipate what your opponents doing and where he is creeping etc (experience, but not much intelligence req here).

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

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

On February 06 2004 06:40 iloveoo wrote:
uhhh that doesn't make much sense ...
why didn't he choose NE in the regame ?!

Did u read what i said? Try quoting the *whole* concept. "The closer a person can get to perfection, the *higher* the competition will be. It will be less based off of luck and speed, and more so on consistancy." This is logical thought. This applies to every game u will ever play. Be it sport, chess, pogs, diving, figure skating, etc. Item drops and creepjacking are *random* factors. *those random factors* make the game about luck. *not the nearness to perfection*.

i would beg to differ. You couldn't even establish a clear rebuttle to me, when what i said was clear and concise. If you can't understand someone who states what they mean clear and concisely, then it would be my experience to doubt your ability to understand someone who *isnt* clear about what they mean.

Thats a pretty arbitrary statement. I can't refute as u did not provide an example. You could tell me that god is a giant mango covered in feathers that has a 63 legs, and i couldn't refute that either. It doesn't make u inherrantly right.

I don't understand what you were trying to point out here. Chess is a superior *strategy* game to brood war, for there are no random factors. it is 100% strategy. Brood war is not. However, that does not make chess a *better game*, for that is only preference. Infact, i said that speed and other factors *make bw the better game*, but that does not mean its superior in *strategy*.

Being that u didnt understand me the first time, i doubt my words will fall any wiser this time round. I will cross my fingers.

On February 05 2004 20:15 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:

Item drops aren't random. Incase you haven't noticed, the harder the creeps, the better the items they drop. You don't go around picking up raise dead from lvl.2 murguls....And Creepjacking is a skill, not luck.

On February 06 2004 08:23 mindspike wrote:
aseq, it is very easy for the very best wc3 players to win 90% of their games in high level competition

the luck factor is no more apparent than in bw actually
random items are balanced because you can sell useless items

On February 06 2004 01:53 ret wrote:
i played war3 and it's just a silly game, the fact i could win 2-0 vs delicato when i played for 2 weeks, and he won the CPL 1 week after, is just very silly. I think the game war3 is ok, but it's always the same and the build doesn't vary much vs different races ( i played with human ) most important things are cleverness in creeping and microing as close to perfect as u can.

Anyone think if Nada played War3 seriously for 2 months he'd rape the shit out of Insomnia, or at least be close to his level of "perfection"?

Perhaps what Insomnia means by "more advanced" is the stuff like binding multiple buildings to one hotkey, autocast, etc. In his opinion these things are "more advanced."

On February 06 2004 08:13 Randomizing wrote:


this guy is so right! i played bw for 4 years orso and in the beginning when i started playing w3 i thought the game was crap and slow as well but when u get a higher level and start playing vs skilled people the game is twice as hard as sc because of the high level of micro that is needed to win vs a descent player.

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

On February 06 2004 03:21 Ilintar wrote:
Hmmm...
I've talked to some good Polish TFT players (25+ lvl on Euro), and generally they agree that WC3 is basically just a game of abused strategies and counters. There is virtually one counter for every major strategy, so it all boils down to perfect timing and build orders. I don't believe that makes a game fun or attractive. True, there's the micro factor that actually requires skill, but BW requires so much more. Most important of that - in BW you have to improvise. WC3 never leaves you with a situation that you're totally unprepared for - if your opponent does a really bizarre build, it probably sucks outright so you don't even have to prepare for it, if it does, it's _THE_ new abuse that will reign for like the next 2 months until someone finds _THE_ counter for it. If that's what Insomnia understood as "this game can be played perfectly" well, yes, I agree. I don't believe it makes WC3 a better game, however.

On February 06 2004 04:18 Macrophage wrote:
i couldnt read all thats written here but i find this interesting:
bw and strategy games in general are no more BASED on intelligence than any first person shooter. on high lvl bw can sometimes, seldomly, have something to do with intelligence, more then high lvl fps, but average bw player certainly uses his mind less than high lvl fps player :>.
and wc3/tft doenst require intelligence almost at all. you may anticipate what your opponents doing and where he is creeping etc (experience, but not much intelligence req here).

On February 06 2004 08:29 mindspike wrote:
if luck is so important then explain to me how sweet[saint] has managed to win 93% of his games against the best players in the world?

http://asialadders.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Kalimdor&PlayerName=Renoma

again you speak like you know what ur talking when u dont

items are fairly well balanced atm and i really cant remember the last game i played or watching a replay where item drops won the game

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

On February 06 2004 08:34 intotherei wrote:
because his skill amount is better than the luck that might be put against him.

ok lets say renoma played a clone of himself, now the winner = ??

thats right, the one that gets the better item drops --

On February 06 2004 08:33 intotherei wrote:


fps isnt about intelligence at all, its about coordination/reactoin time, and hearing (in cs hearing stuff is very improtant)

On February 06 2004 08:52 Macrophage wrote:

no you dont get my point at all and it aint my fault.

again u dont know what ur talking about, in w3 you are constantly scouting and attacking - often at two places at the same time... i have played bw a lot and at a high level so i do know what im talking about with bw probably more than most people here

On February 06 2004 08:38 Filthy. wrote:
"ROFLOL

RIGHT 80% OF THE GAME I DO NOTHING.


STop playing fastest map ever plz.."

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


"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)

etc etc.."

again you speak like you know what ur talking when u dont

items are fairly well balanced atm and i really cant remember the last game i played or watching a replay where item drops won the game

On February 06 2004 09:43 Filthy. wrote:
lol quite the typical game u had there it hardly proves anything, besides my whole point was thats why most people i know like w3 more than bw, your endless list of 'strategies' only prooves my point they are either never used (were talking in semi serious games here... there are many 'crazy' strategies in w3 that number just as many as ur list there), or are tiny variations of the same basic strat.... which you claim are strategy for bw but for w3 you bunch all these under the same strategy

and for rei, the two seasons i played enough games to get high on wgt i came top 8 in 1v1 and top 4 in 2v2.

On February 06 2004 11:48 Beast_Bg wrote:
I actually played it long enough and I actually have 3 of the best players in the world playing in the same club as me.Insomnia included.I gotta hit him hard sometimes for insulting BW now that I think of it .And watching them play is REALLY boring...

On February 06 2004 12:24 Sadist wrote:
Bejje the day u play bw at a high level is the day im on the PGA tour

On February 06 2004 09:43 Filthy. wrote:
lol quite the typical game u had there it hardly proves anything, besides my whole point was thats why most people i know like w3 more than bw, your endless list of 'strategies' only prooves my point they are either never used (were talking in semi serious games here... there are many 'crazy' strategies in w3 that number just as many as ur list there), or are tiny variations of the same basic strat.... which you claim are strategy for bw but for w3 you bunch all these under the same strategy

and for rei, the two seasons i played enough games to get high on wgt i came top 8 in 1v1 and top 4 in 2v2.

On February 06 2004 01:12 XaI)CyRiC wrote:


I was a bit careless with my statement about Mr.X's bad reasoning being justification for the rest of the idiocy going on in this thread. What I meant to say was that Mr.X's opinion is no better than any of the other unsupported flame posts.

On February 06 2004 07:35 aseq wrote:
Ok, the skills comparison makes sense to me. In Warcraft, it's easier to play near perfect, so more players will be (near) top level, so competition is harder at top level. All true.

But then Blizzard made the decision to put in some random elements. Random item drops and random damage are most important out of these, i have little problems with creeps. Now everyone plays "perfect", the randomness will start to have a HUGE impact on the outcome of a game, since player levels are so close. So top-level games are now more decided by luck than ever before...

Also, the fact that counters in WC never are insanely useful as in BW (rvr vs lings, valk vs muta, etc.etc.), it matters less whether you scout well, if you react late to a build it is less of a problem, since you can still use all you have and do relatively well. So scouting has become less important also.

Those two alone make WC a less competitive game than BW. Also, the guy who said how does speed matter in an untimed game of chess. We're talking top level here, top level chess games are always timed. In fact, i don't like playing without timer since i get annoyed by ppl taking really long to think. You have to think faster to outplay, that's the skill here.

Another thing is the attack and armor types, which are confusing in WC. There are about 6 attack and armor types, protectors do piercing damage, (how are stones piercing), and attack types doing EXTRA damage, how can anything ever do EXTRA damage vs an armor??? If i were that unit I'd just take off the armor to receive less damage^^.

Unclear to me how Mr.X explains all this, but time will probably tell if he's right. Myself, I can't see a top level player being consistent since luck is such a big factor, and will always lose him some games, even if he's the best ever.

Sorry for long post, could go on for pages, so much to say about this.

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

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

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)

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

this is an assumption, thus it bears no validity =[

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

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?

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.

Closeness to perfection means stability and repetitiveness, which create boredom, which dont make for a good sport.

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.

hope this wasnt brainless flaming!

On February 06 2004 08:31 intotherei wrote:

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

On February 06 2004 08:41 intotherei wrote:


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

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.

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 *.

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.

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 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.

On February 06 2004 14:04 Teroru wrote:


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.

On February 05 2004 23:52 Teroru wrote:


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.

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.

On February 06 2004 15:29 Orlandu wrote:


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 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.

why wouldnt they be literal, did he speak in a sarcastic tone, did he say "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

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

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 15:36 intotherei wrote:
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 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

On February 06 2004 16:55 intotherei wrote:
these paragraphs right here just prove how you havent been reading my posts. way back when i first started discussing this i said the counters were horrible (with the exception of faierie dragons and tauren) and some other stuff

i guess you didnt read it.

seeing as how you didnt read mines, i wont read the rest of yours.

One entry found for ignorant.

On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote:
war3 doesnt reward intelligence.. the counters in that game are so stupid.

On February 06 2004 15:36 intotherei wrote:
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 19:56 Filthy. wrote:
rei pls if u think that destroyers or spellbreakers aren't good anti spell casters then u really dont know what u are talking about. i will admit that spirit walkers arent as a significant counter to spellcasters but ressurection makes up for that

the same goes with tier 3, bears are probably the best tier 3 unit in the game with roar/rejuv, aboms rip up a tier 1 army and knights are potentially the biggest tanks in the game - however this does not mean that everyone rushes to make these units every game and skip tier 1, just as in bw you don't rush to guards or carriers etc.

On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun?

On February 06 2004 16:11 Teroru wrote:


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?

On February 07 2004 11:19 Commander[SB] wrote:
Fact is, any mu on war3 is about exciting to watch as a pvp game.

On February 06 2004 19:56 Filthy. wrote:
rei pls if u think that destroyers or spellbreakers aren't good anti spell casters then u really dont know what u are talking about. i will admit that spirit walkers arent as a significant counter to spellcasters but ressurection makes up for that

the same goes with tier 3, bears are probably the best tier 3 unit in the game with roar/rejuv, aboms rip up a tier 1 army and knights are potentially the biggest tanks in the game - however this does not mean that everyone rushes to make these units every game and skip tier 1, just as in bw you don't rush to guards or carriers etc.

On February 07 2004 21:33 intotherei wrote:
whatever im not about to argue war3 w/ you on a bw forum

On February 08 2004 10:34 Heen wrote:
my micro is amazing

On February 08 2004 09:47 mindspike wrote:
intotherei you dont know what your're talking about
i can tell that you dont have a top 100 account with any of the races on any of the realms

knights and destroyers dont suck. any good hu or ud would know that.
they both serve a purpose.

On February 08 2004 22:01 stimey d okgm fish wrote:
i'm just insulted by the whole ROC thing. i dont doubt TFT is decent or will be decent enough someday. b ut there were just so many fucking things wrong/inferior in ROC, it is just too insulting, i cant reward blizzard's behavior. i am staying away from TFT in protest. ROC is just has juicy dumb shot in every hole

On February 08 2004 23:36 HeMaN wrote:

Other then that, if you want discuss balance in a game, you should know what you talk about *cough*intotherei*cough* Like someone pointed out, knights and destroyers serves a purpose. Destroyers are fucking good. Mass destroyers against Human is extremely powerful. I don't really get it, what makes dest and breakers bad anti casters? Most of the units in WC3 are really good if you know how to use them.

On February 09 2004 02:20 Filthy. wrote:
ill try and explain why people like playing w3 over bw with an example of a game i played the other day

it was udvud and i had fiend/statue/dk/lich while other guy had fiend+abom/statue/cl/dk, essentially what this is equivalent to in bw is that we both had an mm army except they had more hps than in bw and there are heros.

in bw you would essentially stim and shift attack and then go back pounding ur hotkeys to make more units, if ur really fast and playing on lan or if u get lucky u might be able to pull back a rine and have his army follow it, or maybe you could choose to kill the medics first (bad idea though ) but essentially this is all the battle consists of and takes maybe 30 seconds max.

in comparison in the udvud battle, because the units have more hps and you have more options with spells there is vastly more oppurtunity to micro. i essentially had a spell which can heal any fiend compeltley, a spell which can raise the armour of a unit, a spell which takes about half the hps of a fiend and does moderate splash damage, and my fiends can burrow. instead of the damage spell and armour spell the other guy has a spell which summons some fairly decent units and he also has 4 uses to see any burrowed fiends.

obviously there is so much more potential to use your units here and its this that will decide who wins or loses the game. because the unit hps are higher it takes proabably about 2 seconds of focus fire to kill a unit so you have time (but not that much) to see the fiend being killed and either cast frost armour on it and heal it, run it to the back of your army or burrow it. you also have the option of going for his statues (which heal units and give mana to his heros). these cant be targeted by spells (i.e no healing or direct damage spells) but they have more hps so if he runs them back you could lose 2 or 3 fiends if ur not careful while you try and kill the statue. the other option is to focus on his heros - if u can kill one of these it puts you at a great advantage for the rest of the battle, losing a quarter of your army to kill even one of the heros would be worth it - but they take reduced damage and are faster than ur fiends so are tough to take down

so the battle goes like this not for 30 seconds but for literally 10 minutes with all your attention on controlling your units - this is where all the skill in the game is and is where noone will ever be perfect, and more importantly for most people who like w3 better than bw this is why - because theres less emphasis on making a constant stream of probes and producing out of 10 gateways and a greater emphasis and more possibilities in controlling the units you have

there still definately exists very important elements of economy, strategy, and scouting etc. (although the economy is the 'weakest' part of the game in terms of having the option to choose military over economy as in bw) but the micro is the most important and in my mind the most fun part of rts

On February 09 2004 06:08 FreeZEternal wrote:
Oh..which server is the most gosu in wc3?

On February 09 2004 06:09 SoleSteeler wrote:


definately asia (kalimdor) then northrend (europe)

east/west cannot compare, i believe east is better than west as well nowadays

On February 09 2004 06:13 SoleSteeler wrote:


Just look at the asia ladder... there's like 12 level 50's now... europe has a level 42 i believe, and a couple level 40's, east has level 38? or 36 or so... west is only like 35 =/

On February 08 2004 23:36 HeMaN wrote:
Hahaha...

Imagine a bunch of CS players made a thread and started discussing CS vs BW, how BW doesn't need any strategy and how much CS is a better game in everyway. You would probably laugh at their ignorance and not bother replying, because they would never understand anyway, right? This thread is almost similar, but this time im going to give it a try ^_^.

I haven't read most of the posts, its just too much, I just checked what the discussion is mainly about. Sorry for that.

First of all, you guys should stop concentrating on inso's answer. I've discussed the endless WC3 vs BW topic with many top/ex BW players, including inso in the past. I agree, he didn't really express himself in the best way. The answer could be misunderstood. But trust me, he got many more arguments on why he thinks WC3 is a better game, and just for the record he still enjoys (at least watching) BW.

Just face it, people have different taste, some like BW better, others prefer WC3. I obviously like WC3 better, but at the same time I really enjoy watching and playing BW. Stop being so aggressive, no one forces you to play WC3.

Other then that, if you want discuss balance in a game, you should know what you talk about *cough*intotherei*cough* Like someone pointed out, knights and destroyers serves a purpose. Destroyers are fucking good. Mass destroyers against Human is extremely powerful. I don't really get it, what makes dest and breakers bad anti casters? Most of the units in WC3 are really good if you know how to use them.

The Bond vs whoever replay was funny, but you can't judge from only one replay. Fairy dragons are good against casters, but as for example human you can micro and kill them without taking any damage, you have to hit n run. A spontaneous example is comparing M&M against lurkers. Just like lurkers, fairys can't move while in manaflare mode, thus you can just keep your casters out of range and focus fire on the fairys with riflemans, they got very low hitpoints. If he moves the fairys or comes running with his army outside the fairys range, you got a nice opportunity to manually slow half his army, get in a clap and bolt and then move back, then just repeat. And just like lurkers vs marines, if he gets into your base unnoticed and burrows, it can be devastating, just like the 4k.bond replay showed.

On February 08 2004 22:01 mindspike wrote:
oh and ive seen many pro games where ud MASS destroyers

On February 09 2004 02:35 mindspike wrote:


so intotherei...i guess you know more than HeMaN ?
or maybe you're just talking out of your ass