Heh heh, whatever, you're an idiot. If it was your intention to troll you've wasted as much of your own time than you have of mine. Your time is yours. I'm an internet guy. There are zillions of us. Smooth move.
So War3 "sucks" because the only viable strategies are attacking with armies all of the same unit type. Except for a few variations (*cough* dozens of them *cough*) where you attack with 2 or more unit types. But unswayed by logic, you continue to insist that war3 "sucks", because: 1) Building your base is mandatory 2) Building some guys is mandatory 3) Creeping is strongly encouraged 4) Attacking is mandatory Boy, what lame RTS title, where you have to attack, build guys, and build a base! There's no strategy there! Nosirre! I now believe War3 is signifcantly less stratigic than tic-tac-toe. Your bony little logical fists have shown me a new world of pain!
Ppppth!
You are sad. You haven't even played this game seriously, if at all. (yes I noticed you dodged the question for the third time). Maybe you overheard some english-speakers in the lunch line, wrote down their comments, and posted them later on slashdot. Work on your transcription skills, bud!
So, lets recount your argument: 1) War3 is only "rushing" 2) "rushing" is attacking with units of same type
You have not yet explained how your worldview accepts ghoul-garg as a viable strategy. While you're at it, please explain why these are not viable strategies: shaman-wyvern or wolfrider-drop or seige-drop or knight-priest-pally. I could go on like this all day.
Also, explain again to me your Warcraft3 qualifications again? You say you play Lan games at school. You've never explicitly said how many hours you've logged on War3. You sound like a newb.
Yes, I'm bothered when people are totally wrong about something. I do my best to help them.
You have not refuted a single point.
On the contrary, I have refuted all your points. See the grand-parent of this post for details, that you conveniently don't cite.
Clearly, I have
one this discussion...Your ownly retort is "you're clueless." It's funny.
I'm not a grammar pro, but, uh, dude, are you from a non-english speaking country? As to my being "clueless", see post grandfather where I take your pathetic "reasoning" and beat it silly.
Wow, ghoul-garg, using two or more unit types to rush. What was that supposed to prove?
It proves your entire argument, that war3 is about building unit type X, leveling, then attacking, is full of shit:
Rushing is attacking with swarms of the same unit type. You level up your heroes then send out the masses. It's really quite simple. ---snip--- The only way to win now is to memorize an arcane build order, create your little Diablo creep-killing parties, and then go rush the enemy. ---snip--- In WarCraft 3, there are no variations in that strategy whatsoever.
Wrong. As usual. Do you even play War3 actively? (even in the city-in-a-bottle of your school, where players don't get out much) You are so clueless!
Maybe more people this month play StarCraft than Warcraft 3. I don't think that proves a thing, the majority isn't the final arbiter of whether the game is mindless or not. TONS of people play plenty of mindless games already. Look at Everquest.
StarCraft hit another level with the release of Broodwar. Perhaps Frozen Throne will do the same for War3. Its too soon to tell, really, since no one can speculate on balance accurately till the pros have had 3 months to study the balance carefully.
WarCraft 3 is nothing but rushing. All "variations" you point out are simply different ways to inevitably rush. The game is based on your heroes, who must be levelled up and sent with squads.
As usual you offer no proof, not even the sketch of one. In order to convince a critical audience, you must show, for each of those 190 strategies that it is single-unit-massing. You simply can't do this, since there are competitive strategies in there like ghoul-garg, which rely on using two or more unit types.
So, please tell me about how you'd allocate the 190 strategies per unit type: 20 footman strats 10 militia strats ...
2 wisp strats +4 chim strats ____________________ 190 total strats
Or use your own words, don't let me put them in your mouth, but still show me that each and every of those 190 strategies is a massing strategy, or doesn't work, and I'll agree that there is no strategy to War3 other than simple massing. On the other hand, if any of those strategies both works and is not a massing strat (and they do), its obvious who is full of it.
That's all WarCraft 3 is--levelling up and making squads. Levelling up and making squads.
Uh, no, managing "meeting" engagements while creeping, like I said, is the heart of the game. Here's a good retell where my buddy and I repell shameless footmen/tower massers. Why do we beat them? For two reasons: (1) unit diversity. (2) slightly better management of "meeting" engagements while creeping.
In starcraft a battle is normally shaped by just three factors: (1) forces, (2) terrain, (3) formation. When there are also creeps tying down a big army, a smaller, better managed army can win, or slow down, a much bigger army. Its cool. Try it.
2. "there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types". According to battle.net there are 43 core non-hero units.
Yes, different variations of the rushing squad for the leveled up hero. Next.
So according to you, there are an average of 4 massing variations per unit. 4 acolyte massing strats. 4 wisp massing strats. 4 chimera massing strats. 4 gyrocopter massing strats. Sorry, I just don't see it.
More people play StarCraft than WarCraft 3. Why do you think that is? I'm sure you have a fanboy "explanation" for everything.
Hey, I like parts of starcraft better myself. But according to you Warcraft 3 is devoid of "any possibilities of actual battle strategies." That is simply not true. Warcraft 3 is a good game in its own right. It took some risks, and it is true that some of them didn't turn out very well. As of patch 1.02 I felt the 4 warcraft races were racially themed much less harmoniously than the 3 starcraft races. Non-hero casters are much more boring. But hey: heros are cool. Autocast is cool. Shops are cool. Creeps are cool. Managing engagements while creeping is the art of the game, and very cool. Starcraft and War2 have nothing comparable to that.
Since according to you, war3 consists of building lots of a single unit type plus a hero, and since there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types, the pigeon-hole principle proves that at least some of those strategies are non-massing strategies.
That's a nice way to put words into my mouth in order to make yourself seem right.
So what part of my statement do you disagree with? Multiple choice time:
"war3 consists of building lots of a single unit type plus a hero"... apperantly you agree since on Wednesday July 02, @11:50AM you wrote:
Rushing is attacking with swarms of the same unit type. You level up your heroes then send out the masses. It's really quite simple.
"there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types". According to battle.net there are 43 core non-hero units.
There are currently 190 strategies posted. (Since this list is maintained by one guy, he weeds out duplicates. )
The pigeon-hole principle states that given 43 massable unit types and 190 distinct strategies, at least 157 of those strategies must envolve something more than "lets build lots of unit X".
So, what do you disagree with? Huh? I'm waiting? Hello? Hello?
There are 184 variations on rushing. The entire game is rushing.
You never use the word "rushing" consistently. When it suits your rhetorical interests it can mean either "attack" or "massing". In any case, you're wrong, since the game also consists of scouting, creeping, and building.
Interviews with Blizzard game designers before release mentioned that they specifically intended to set up the gameplay so that games were much, much shorter.
I read a lot of interviews, and I don't remember them ever saying they were trying to shorten the game. I remember Rob Pardo saying they were trying to avoid the "build 8 gateways and spam zealot+goons". But that's different.
The entire game is memorize build order->make heroes->make squads of units->level up->go rush enemy base.
At your level of play, apperantly this is correct. But you play in a bubble. I've heard this "but I play at school in a closed environment" argument before. Yes, they had their head up their ass as well.
184 different variations on rushing. That's just perfect.
Since according to you, war3 consists of building lots of 1 units type plus a hero, and since there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types, the pigeon-hole principle proves that at least some of those strategies are non-massing strategies.
In the sense you're using it "massing" is a better word than "rushing".
If war3 were truly "level, level, level, mass unit X, attack", there should only be about 1-2 strategies per unit, in a game with about 30 units, that doesn't account for, say, these 184 different strategies!
> Next You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Have you even played this game competitively? If so, what level were you? You strike me as a big baby that lost a few times and quit.
As to quibbling about the meaning of "to Rush", battle.net has this to say:
A Rush originally meant a very early attack. Over the years its meaning has been twisted to an attack at any point of the game or an attack with a lot of units. Some players have different definitions of 'Rush'.
So I guess you can pick your meaning, but you can't blame someone for picking up the historical definition.
A true "Rush" would entail skipping the "run around levelling him up" phase.
No, it wouldn't. Rushing is attacking with swarms of the same unit type. You level up your heroes then send out the masses. It's really quite simple.
Ahem. Last time I checked (1.02) War3 had hard counters. I see you coming in with mass footmen, I go wyvern. I see you coming in with mass dwarf riflemen, I go grunt. I see you coming in with mass griffons, I go shaman+headhunter. If you're getting attacked by non-multicultural armies and losing, perhaps you need to learn how to scout.
This doesn't discriminate against the blind. It descriminates against the blind who have no sighted family or co-workers. That seems like an insanely small percentage. In fact the only place that might happen is in pro-blind lobbying groups. Hence, this situation.
I developed a similar technique for comic-book-izing warcraft III battle reports. My greatest creation is Gar'dal Man Slayer. Also I wrote War in the Crucible, and perhaps one or two more that I'm forgetting.
"To Rush" is not synonymous with "To Attack". What you describe is an attack, not a rush. A true "Rush" would entail skipping the "run around levelling him up" phase.
What you describe sounds like fun to me. After all, if you don't want to (1) build basic units (2) improve your units (3) then attack your enemy, what do you like about RTSes, anyway?
Breaking down the violence this way is a good thing, in fact it will probably end up making video games look less violent than movies. Since movies tend to build the characters up a bit before their brains get splattered against the wall. Well excepting "Attack of the clones", where the clone army (which we don't care about) fights the mechanic army (which we also don't care about).
But I digress.
A point, a point, I was going to make a point...
Ah, what about publishers that want a violent-er rating to appeal to an older audience? E.g. the original Wipeout for PS1 had a "mature" rating for "violence". The only violence in the game was firing weapons from hovercraft to hovercraft, and even then the only consequence of a direct hit was slowing the enemy down. How violent is that? Not at all. They just didn't want their cyberpunk game to get labeled with the kiss-of-death "appropriate for all ages" moniker.
Right. That was my point from the beginning. If communication overhead grows at (n log n) and the study consistantly picks bigger OSS projects than closed projects, then the OSS projects should theoretically have more problems quashing bugs. That's my point, not very deep at all!
Oh come off it, Blizz has know about freecraft for as long as its existed. You can't employ a company full of programmers that somehow is unaware of the #1 download at sourceforge.net for years running. I'm unclear on why they decided to take action now.
There was a free battle.net implementation (bnetd) that was only attacked when it was being used to play cracked versions of war3beta. That kinda made sense. This makes no sense to me. I think freecraft has a case.
There are communication overheads for projects with more than 1 active programmer. You don't need branching, patching, etcetera when you're a team of one. You don't need to argue office politics about whether the UI team should be from the OS department or the application department. Good projects funnel developers off into their own little spheres of influence. When you encroach on another's sphere, you have to take time out to learn their API, or even their CPI, and that takes time.
Two of the three open projects you cite also happen to be bigger than most projects, with more developers working in || at the same time than most projects. Does that help them? Read "the mythical man-month" for the answer. (Hint: no).
I don't recall downloading such a file when I compiled the GIMP from source, yet the GIF still works for me. Maybe the library was already on the system and auto-detected by./configure? But since I'm running Debian sans non-free distribution section, I'd expect them to be very on top of stuff like that.
Maybe, like TIFF, there's an option to make GIFs without compression. IIRC imagemagik produces huge GIFs, which one should re-save in GIMP
Slashdot Mirror
Heh heh, whatever, you're an idiot. If it was your intention to troll you've wasted as much of your own time than you have of mine. Your time is yours. I'm an internet guy. There are zillions of us. Smooth move.
You really crack me up!
So War3 "sucks" because the only viable strategies are attacking with armies all of the same unit type. Except for a few variations (*cough* dozens of them *cough*) where you attack with 2 or more unit types. But unswayed by logic, you continue to insist that war3 "sucks", because:
1) Building your base is mandatory
2) Building some guys is mandatory
3) Creeping is strongly encouraged
4) Attacking is mandatory
Boy, what lame RTS title, where you have to attack, build guys, and build a base! There's no strategy there! Nosirre! I now believe War3 is signifcantly less stratigic than tic-tac-toe. Your bony little logical fists have shown me a new world of pain!
Ppppth!
You are sad. You haven't even played this game seriously, if at all. (yes I noticed you dodged the question for the third time). Maybe you overheard some english-speakers in the lunch line, wrote down their comments, and posted them later on slashdot. Work on your transcription skills, bud!
So, lets recount your argument:
1) War3 is only "rushing"
2) "rushing" is attacking with units of same type
You have not yet explained how your worldview accepts ghoul-garg as a viable strategy. While you're at it, please explain why these are not viable strategies: shaman-wyvern or wolfrider-drop or seige-drop or knight-priest-pally. I could go on like this all day.
Also, explain again to me your Warcraft3 qualifications again? You say you play Lan games at school. You've never explicitly said how many hours you've logged on War3. You sound like a newb.
Yes, I'm bothered when people are totally wrong about something. I do my best to help them.
On the contrary, I have refuted all your points. See the grand-parent of this post for details, that you conveniently don't cite.
I'm not a grammar pro, but, uh, dude, are you from a non-english speaking country? As to my being "clueless", see post grandfather where I take your pathetic "reasoning" and beat it silly.
It proves your entire argument, that war3 is about building unit type X, leveling, then attacking, is full of shit:
Wrong. As usual. Do you even play War3 actively? (even in the city-in-a-bottle of your school, where players don't get out much) You are so clueless!
StarCraft hit another level with the release of Broodwar. Perhaps Frozen Throne will do the same for War3. Its too soon to tell, really, since no one can speculate on balance accurately till the pros have had 3 months to study the balance carefully.
As usual you offer no proof, not even the sketch of one. In order to convince a critical audience, you must show, for each of those 190 strategies that it is single-unit-massing. You simply can't do this, since there are competitive strategies in there like ghoul-garg, which rely on using two or more unit types.
Show some logic or shut up.
20 footman strats
10 militia strats
2 wisp strats
+4 chim strats
____________________
190 total strats
Or use your own words, don't let me put them in your mouth, but still show me that each and every of those 190 strategies is a massing strategy, or doesn't work, and I'll agree that there is no strategy to War3 other than simple massing. On the other hand, if any of those strategies both works and is not a massing strat (and they do), its obvious who is full of it.
Uh, no, managing "meeting" engagements while creeping, like I said, is the heart of the game. Here's a good retell where my buddy and I repell shameless footmen/tower massers. Why do we beat them? For two reasons: (1) unit diversity. (2) slightly better management of "meeting" engagements while creeping.
In starcraft a battle is normally shaped by just three factors: (1) forces, (2) terrain, (3) formation. When there are also creeps tying down a big army, a smaller, better managed army can win, or slow down, a much bigger army. Its cool. Try it.
So according to you, there are an average of 4 massing variations per unit. 4 acolyte massing strats. 4 wisp massing strats. 4 chimera massing strats. 4 gyrocopter massing strats. Sorry, I just don't see it.
Hey, I like parts of starcraft better myself. But according to you Warcraft 3 is devoid of "any possibilities of actual battle strategies." That is simply not true. Warcraft 3 is a good game in its own right. It took some risks, and it is true that some of them didn't turn out very well. As of patch 1.02 I felt the 4 warcraft races were racially themed much less harmoniously than the 3 starcraft races. Non-hero casters are much more boring. But hey: heros are cool. Autocast is cool. Shops are cool. Creeps are cool. Managing engagements while creeping is the art of the game, and very cool. Starcraft and War2 have nothing comparable to that.
So what part of my statement do you disagree with? Multiple choice time:
So, what do you disagree with? Huh? I'm waiting? Hello? Hello?
You never use the word "rushing" consistently. When it suits your rhetorical interests it can mean either "attack" or "massing". In any case, you're wrong, since the game also consists of scouting, creeping, and building.
I read a lot of interviews, and I don't remember them ever saying they were trying to shorten the game. I remember Rob Pardo saying they were trying to avoid the "build 8 gateways and spam zealot+goons". But that's different.
At your level of play, apperantly this is correct. But you play in a bubble. I've heard this "but I play at school in a closed environment" argument before. Yes, they had their head up their ass as well.
Since according to you, war3 consists of building lots of 1 units type plus a hero, and since there are well below 184 distinct massable unit types, the pigeon-hole principle proves that at least some of those strategies are non-massing strategies.
FYI I was once in the top 1000 on USWest.
No, I don't agree.
In the sense you're using it "massing" is a better word than "rushing".
If war3 were truly "level, level, level, mass unit X, attack", there should only be about 1-2 strategies per unit, in a game with about 30 units, that doesn't account for, say, these 184 different strategies!
> Next
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Have you even played this game competitively? If so, what level were you? You strike me as a big baby that lost a few times and quit.
So I guess you can pick your meaning, but you can't blame someone for picking up the historical definition.
Ahem. Last time I checked (1.02) War3 had hard counters. I see you coming in with mass footmen, I go wyvern. I see you coming in with mass dwarf riflemen, I go grunt. I see you coming in with mass griffons, I go shaman+headhunter. If you're getting attacked by non-multicultural armies and losing, perhaps you need to learn how to scout.
This doesn't discriminate against the blind. It descriminates against the blind who have no sighted family or co-workers. That seems like an insanely small percentage. In fact the only place that might happen is in pro-blind lobbying groups. Hence, this situation.
I developed a similar technique for comic-book-izing warcraft III battle reports. My greatest creation is Gar'dal Man Slayer. Also I wrote War in the Crucible, and perhaps one or two more that I'm forgetting.
Bill Roper seemed to be overseeing the final phases of War3. Aren't these four the original D&D players that grew up in Pacific Palisades together?
"To Rush" is not synonymous with "To Attack". What you describe is an attack, not a rush. A true "Rush" would entail skipping the "run around levelling him up" phase.
What you describe sounds like fun to me. After all, if you don't want to (1) build basic units (2) improve your units (3) then attack your enemy, what do you like about RTSes, anyway?
Breaking down the violence this way is a good thing, in fact it will probably end up making video games look less violent than movies. Since movies tend to build the characters up a bit before their brains get splattered against the wall. Well excepting "Attack of the clones", where the clone army (which we don't care about) fights the mechanic army (which we also don't care about).
But I digress.
A point, a point, I was going to make a point...
Ah, what about publishers that want a violent-er rating to appeal to an older audience? E.g. the original Wipeout for PS1 had a "mature" rating for "violence". The only violence in the game was firing weapons from hovercraft to hovercraft, and even then the only consequence of a direct hit was slowing the enemy down. How violent is that? Not at all. They just didn't want their cyberpunk game to get labeled with the kiss-of-death "appropriate for all ages" moniker.
Gravity: we all know it sucks, we just don't know how fast.
Scanning for sense of humor ... scanning ... no sign, captian.
Right. That was my point from the beginning. If communication overhead grows at (n log n) and the study consistantly picks bigger OSS projects than closed projects, then the OSS projects should theoretically have more problems quashing bugs. That's my point, not very deep at all!
Oh come off it, Blizz has know about freecraft for as long as its existed. You can't employ a company full of programmers that somehow is unaware of the #1 download at sourceforge.net for years running. I'm unclear on why they decided to take action now.
There was a free battle.net implementation (bnetd) that was only attacked when it was being used to play cracked versions of war3beta. That kinda made sense. This makes no sense to me. I think freecraft has a case.
There are communication overheads for projects with more than 1 active programmer. You don't need branching, patching, etcetera when you're a team of one. You don't need to argue office politics about whether the UI team should be from the OS department or the application department. Good projects funnel developers off into their own little spheres of influence. When you encroach on another's sphere, you have to take time out to learn their API, or even their CPI, and that takes time.
Two of the three open projects you cite also happen to be bigger than most projects, with more developers working in || at the same time than most projects. Does that help them? Read "the mythical man-month" for the answer. (Hint: no).
I don't recall downloading such a file when I compiled the GIMP from source, yet the GIF still works for me. Maybe the library was already on the system and auto-detected by ./configure? But since I'm running Debian sans non-free distribution section, I'd expect them to be very on top of stuff like that.
Maybe, like TIFF, there's an option to make GIFs without compression. IIRC imagemagik produces huge GIFs, which one should re-save in GIMP
Its the kind of quote that comes in handy on a daily basis. At least for me. Your job might be slightly more boring.