The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Warcraft III TFT: Now with more burrow rushing
M.Gorbachev
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Inspired by the Starcraft thread - seriously peoples, where is the Warcrafting?
And I don't mean DOTA.
Let's get a list of account names and start some 1v1ing and ATing and FFAing, for the love of god.
I play on US West, but am willing to migrate for some playing opportunities. New players welcome - we'll go easy on you buggers. Old players welcome - I always enjoy a good trouncing. Starcraft players welcome - we'll teach you to stop triple raxing yet.
Start replying so we can get a channel up and running - message me in game as ClosetBolshevik. I'm on weekends and usually later in the night during the week.
And I don't mean DOTA.
Let's get a list of account names and start some 1v1ing and ATing and FFAing, for the love of god.
I play on US West, but am willing to migrate for some playing opportunities. New players welcome - we'll go easy on you buggers. Old players welcome - I always enjoy a good trouncing. Starcraft players welcome - we'll teach you to stop triple raxing yet.
Start replying so we can get a channel up and running - message me in game as ClosetBolshevik. I'm on weekends and usually later in the night during the week.
M.Gorbachev on
0
Posts
"WHAT!? WHAT IS HE DOING? GET OUT OF MY BASE, BASTARD!"
Only good for UMS.
I
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=10974&highlight=Warcraft+III
Anyways, wc3: TFT haters shouldn't be allowed in these threads
My acc on Northrend is SeanP, on Azeroth it's gneGne.
B.net: Kusanku
Plus people online are ungodly to play against.
We all suck.
For some reason, no matter what we do, we just flat out can not win. Me and a friend of mine are the two best out of our group and we do a little 2vs2 AT and usually strategize before the game. I'll go Human and get Archmage w/ Water Elemental and Riflemen and tech up to Sorceresses/Priests while he gets Grunts then gets up to Tauren then Shaman/Spirit Walkers.
That just one strategy, and we always seem to get our asses kicked.
Can anyone direct me to some good strats or just give me some tips to help us out?
Then we went on vactions and stuff. And when we came back it was like, why bother?
any one know whats up?
If we could get enough people I am sure we can get some really good games going.
These threads show up a lot and seem to have enough intrest but die off quickly. Maybe we can change that.
For anyone looking to get better, I highly suggest you watch some replays over here.
wcreplays.com
They even have audio commentary replays, some not all, which are helpfull.
As for a really good 2s AT strat, I have one that has been commonly used and is extreamly effective at low levels of play. You could easily pull off 5-0 AT with it.
Its Orc / NE
NE masses Hunts with POTM trueshot aura while the Orc player masses Head Hunters with a TC with aura then stomp.
http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1272447#post1272447
There is a build for the orc player during this strat, I believe there is a replay.
For NE hunt build you cand find in pretty much anywhere online. I'll try to find you a replay of this.
Getting one or two unit types just doesn't work against the comps, you really need to come up with a balanced mixed army of casters, ranged, and melee units.
I never bought TFT after I tried it in the beta, but I'm more than happy to play people on regular WC3. I don't even remember my account name, but I'll make a new one if there are enough people wanting to play.
I still don't understand why you didn't like TFT? Your saying its beacuse you could not mass 2 unit types and win against a computer?
The game is great fun if you've got good team play going on. Town portal scrolls make it nice for team games.
Just as long as you dudes don't tower rush. gah
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
I used to have a friend I'd 2v2 AT with all the time and we did pretty decently (almost level 30ish or so) so whenever we got bored or started losing a lot we'd pick some random neutral heroes we never used before and mass fairie dragons or something.
It fixed the balance problems, but there's some issues with the core gameplay that a lot of people don't like. For instance, your investment is really in your units rather than your buildings (unlike in Starcraft or C&C), so if you lose one major battle, the game is effectively over. Also, many people feel that the game simply revolves too much around heroes and their upkeep.
Oh, right: As for your 2v2 woes insomniac...Hu/Orc is probably the second best 2v2 racial combo. The cookie cutter IS, actually, Archmage first, mountain king second - with rifle-caster. The breaker to sorc to priest ratio depending on your enemy races/unit combos.
And for your orc buddy, Blademaster to either Tauren Chieften or Shadow Hunter second. You want the Blademaster as an uber scout, keeping tabs on enemy creep patterns. And the TC/SH choice is mainly one of taste. I prefer the Shadow Hunter, because healing wave is great in combination with human and orc casters. And the cookiecutter orc unit combo is two-grunt tech to grunt/raiders/spiritwalkers.
It's strong because both human and orc are great tier two powerpushers - so you want to creep till tier two, then start blowing crap up once you get casters.
If you've got any other questions about strategy, feel free to ask. OR JUST PLAY.
yea, i think the old wc 3 file from the last time u un-installed is still there and corrupted. at least, that's what it was for me when i got that error upon try-ing to reinstall
It could also be scratches in the discs, but with 2 diff sets? unlikely
But I put that time and research into the game.
So, I may be in. Maybe. (WoW eats up time)
That's what 4v4 games are for, I think. You get a taste of build strategy and coordination, while having less of a risk of being immediately annihilated. Once you think you actually know how to play, you can move into 1v1s or team games and get owned slightly less hard than you would have if you had jumped into them in the beginning.
It's just way too micro-intensive for me. I'm an fps player, I'm used to focusing in on one thing and blowing its head off. I tried for 2 years to get better at WC3, and although I got considerably better along the way, I simply just don't have the stones or skills to effectively play the game. I know a lot of people hate it, but (and people may disagree) WC3 is the most skill and strat based RTS to come out... pretty much ever. You can't have cannon fodder, you can't rush with massive "ultimate units", you need to level up your heroes while doing all of it. If your units die, even your footies or archers, you're up shits creek. Worst slippery slope gameplay ever.
I'd be up for some WC3 action if my discs hadn't been destroyed when I put them in the bag and got on the plane to come to Phoenix. I should pick some up, it can't be more than $20 for the expansion and game.
And oh god is revenge ever so sweet.
I'm off for the night, sadly - but I should be on again tomorrow night.
After my 0-6 losing streak over the weekend (coming right out of my 10-0 winning streak during the week), I'm finally getting back into the swing of things.
Echo Isles is now perhaps my favorite map, after a 20 minute game that ended up with 100 food of flying machines descending on the other guy's base.
Oh how I wish I'd screenshotted.
Memories...
I always build too slow and get raped in the ass by a bunch of crap I have no clue how to get rid of.
No I liked the mixed groups compared to back in the day of "Mass zerglings awlawl, I win" days. I know TFT supports the mixed groups, but I just couldn't get used to all of the new content involved. Literally going up against Gosu my first round of beta didn't help much either.
And mass archers is just wrong. It shouldn't work, but it does. Every time.
although i love warcraft, i have to say, skill and strategy play a much lesser role in wc than in other rts games. wc is not an rts; it is in essence, an action game with some rpg and some rts elements. i think if people think about it this way, they can enjoy it more.
the meta game is broken in that it actually punishes strategic players (while rewarding strong battle focused players) and severely limits the usefulness of strategy. i'll just give one example below:
creeping or attacking in early game should be a strategic choice. however, due to tp scrolls and how powerful static defenses are in the early game, a fast rush is never a viable option. it may harass or annoy a player, but it can never win a game like a super fast ling rush could in sc. the first few minutes of sc are intense, especially if your opponent is zerg and you are protoss. i can have 6 lings up with 4 following and in your base by the time you have one zealot. if you arent incredible with probie control, you are dead. but if you strategically chose forge (cannon) instead barracks (zs), you can hold off the ling attack relatively easily. but, if you choose to go cannon and i dont go ling rush but instead go fast double hatch and heavy hydra, then you may be fucked in the long run. in other words, in sc, strategic decisions mattered. they dont matter much in wc:tft because the best an early rush / harass can do is kill off 1 or 2 workers or maybe make him tp back. which is almost pointless in the long run. in 90% of situations, it's better to creep and so everyone does.
please keep in mind that im talking about 1v1 here. team games are meaningless because they are ridiculously unbalanced.
wc is really just too forgiving on strategic errors. that may be one of the reasons why some people like it (including myself), and that's fair. but the fact that there are so many cushions to insulate against bad strategic choices makes the game less strategic, not more.
also sc requires more skill as well.
This is pretty much not true. Early techs vs pushes are virtually the same thing. Scrolls of TP do not somehow counter being outproduced due to an early tech. Late game, unit choice is a major factor in deciding battle outcome.
No, it's not StarCraft, but saying it's devoid of strategy is quite skewered. It differs with StarCraft in that SC is pretty much, right off the bat, very complicated, while WC3 gets exceedingly intricate as you delve deeper and face more difficult players.
I'm thinking about strategy when I make a Graveyard before a Crypt in an Undead/Night Elf matchup to get a unit advantage with Crypt Fiends to their early Archers. I'm thinking about strategy when I manipulate my opponent away from my base long enough to have flying units when he's still stuck with melee. I'm thinking about strategy after having a few skirmishes with the enemy, then thinking ahead and subtly altering my army to suit the weaknesses I see. I'm thinking about strategy when I make expansions, maneuver flying units, or basically do anything in the game.
Winning with a rush isn't impossible, but the point is to get your hero experience off of workers / weaker units, while distracting your enemy from creeping, and using the opportunity to upgrade and research. It gives you such a huge advantage it's ridiculous to try and avoid the enemy at all in the early game. Creeping is necessary, once you think you're secure enough to go do it, but you can't get past level five on creeps alone. Not to mention having the opponent stumble upon you while creeping.
The game's skill spectrum is immense, which is why the entire ladder system exists in the first place. I'm not even shedding light on what the big-name league players can pull off.
yes scrolls of tp counter early rush in almost all scenarios. ever see solo warden? in case you dont know what that is, it's a player going nothing but warden, mass moonwells and mass ancient protectors. super fast tech to chippo. the fact that this can work shows how ridiculously unstrategic the game can sometimes be.
im not saying it's absolutely devoid of strategy. im just saying that good strategy will not win the game. high aps is far more important.
"strategic" decisions must be made in any game. whether i fight or use magic against the wimpy enemy in final fantasy is a "strategic" decision. but the strategy element is almost totally unimportant. there is nothing really to be gained from wasting mana and attacking will kill the wimpy rat just as easily. as such, although the choices are provided to me (and choosing among them may be "strategic"), i simply never choose one over the other because it provides no benefit.
it's the same with wc. for 90% of players, creeping is the only option. for 90% of players you must have some melee, some range and some magic. for 90% of players, you must upgrade to tiers 2 and 3 because tier 1 units (with the exception of archers) are not useful for the entire game. there is very little strategy involved. again, im not talking about team games or newbie games. the point is, the effectiveness of strategy in wc is heavily diluted. it's still there, just not as important. and i dont think this is a bad thing. i like action games more than strategy games anyway.
The effectiveness of strategy in Starcraft is non-existant. All you do is click a mouse and make stupid thingies walk over the map and sometimes they shoot guns and sometimes a zerg burrows.
Though endless amount of varied custom maps puts this way up near the top of my favorite games ever. I don't think I've ever had a game that has kept me enthralled for the amount of time TFT has, but oh lordy how I suck at playing the game it was meant to be played
Hardly. If a player loses to that, they're simply inferior and have no idea how to handle the situation. Massing anything is a horrible idea, anyway, since all units have a hard counter in any race you pick.
I disagree. No matter how many times I click my mouse in a minute in an early game, I'm not going to be able to somehow get an advantage over a pack of Archers with Ghouls. High APS isn't something you strive for, it comes naturally to players who are micro-intensive to get the most out of their units. When I view replay statistics, there's always a fool who keeps a ridiculously high APS through the entire game (RALLY POINT RALLY POINT RALLY POINT) and loses because he's a moron who don't give any real thought to his strategy. Meanwhile, the victor's APS stays low until they come into a skirmish, then skyrockets in huge in-base battles. He wins not because of his ability to form control groups, but because he understands the game at a higher level than his opponent.
Then I'll go ahead and define "strategic decisions" to mean "choices that have repercussions and consequences that will greatly contribute to how the game ends".
That is untrue. Yes, you're going to want to creep, as it's required to make your hero more beneficial in battles as well as open up gold mines and neutral buildings. Yes, you're going to want a generalized army in a solo game to minimize your weaknesses (which still exist due to basic differences in the races, and can still be exploited... unless you modify your army slightly, which will open up more holes yet. Strategy at work!) while trying your best to wipe the floor with the opponent. You seem to be insinuating that the game is static in design because of that, making strategy worthless and micromanagement skill necessary to win, which is quite clearly not the case.
An army of Raiders, Troll Berserkers, Tauren, and Shamans will obliterate any standard Undead army. If the Undead player invests in Meat Wagons and Destroyers, however, his Necromancers will be able to bolster the front line of Ghouls and Abominations enough to keep his Destroyers and Meat Wagons far away from the Raiders to annihilate the Shamans and Berserkers. Meat Wagons as a combat unit aren't typically used, least against Orc players, but splashing Siege damage will rip apart a group of Light armor Shamans. That's a strategic choice that will definitely affect the outcome of the match.
im guessing you've never played against solo warden. also, humans have no hard counter against chippo. they only have soft counters.
i dont care about meaningless aps and i dont even know why you are bringing that up. my point is: high aps in battle is far more important than strategic unit choice, strategic positioning, strategic raids, strategic anything in wc.
a good high aps player with minimal strategy will defeat a good strategic player with minimal aps every time.
ok. then i would say that there are very few strategic decisions in wc.
one strategic decision removed.
another strategic decision removed. please keep in mind that for example that starcraft does not remove this strategic decision from a player's hands. it is definitely possible to win with just one unit. a good lurker drop or sneak can win you the game.
again, you are exaggerating my point in an attempt to make it absurd (strawmanning). strategy is not "worthless". it is worth less than adept battle skill.
possibly, but an equivalent army of frost wyrms would also decimate that group, especially if the player has strong battle skills. a player with enough skill could defeat that army with just spiders and stats depending on how good he is. and that's the point im trying to make: strategic matchups in the game are far less important than how well you control your army. if i kill your heros first, then it wont even matter if you kill my army because you wont get any experience.
im not saying that strategy doesnt matter at all. my point is more subtle than that. strategy does matter somewhat. gargoyles will defeat grunts. dryads will defeat frost wyrms (eventually). tauren will defeat ghouls. but they dont matter as much as in other more strategy heavy games like sc where a bad strategic decision means a loss. a bad strategic decision in wc means that you may be fighting at a disadvantage. but if you still fight well (perhaps by killing a hero early), you might nevertheless win.
The bigger the team games, the less you have to micro really, depending on what role your army plays in the battle.