The Failure of E-Sport Quality Aggression Especially NE

General Discussion
1

So I’m back and no I have not bought or played warcraft 3 reforged yet but I’m here, yet again, to exploit the horror of the situation for its E-sport quality for all races and in particular the most unique ones fundamentally (NE),.

So as the game has been released I’ll do a “let me guess… they haven’t” meme scheme for every critical point in regard to the NE race exclusively just to show the insanity and the horror.

So let me guess…

-They haven’t realized that the warcraft 3 tech tree is more flexible than the starcraft tech tree in which they would be willing to implement a melee game mode that allowed complete freedom of the tech tree (not natural or re-searchable abilities though) which would allow, say… NE to make ancient of lore at tier 1 (mountain giant without natural or researched abilities until tier 2 or 3) so that a Quality E-sport Aggressive Playstyle could be conducted.

-They haven’t recognized the same problems with starcraft zerg trickling over in to warcraft night elf such as the worker sacrifice for defensive structure that either does not fill it’s role philosophy(sunken) or never, in any way, achieves the comparable original speed of its sacrificer (wisp). Therefor the ancient protector does not move as fast as a wisp by day which would be justified due to this tree harnessing the power of the sunlight (like how archers harness the power of the moon to go invis) but with the obvious consequence of not being able to root during the day as would be over powered. But also the consideration that if fast moving ancient protector by day does not make enough sense to lore or character that proportioning would be called in so that the archers (as part of the tiny to huge, melee to missile scheme) would also move faster during the night time instead so that a Quality E-sport Aggressive Playstyle could be conducted.

Note: we argued about this point here before, especially in terms of cost type as sunken colony costs 1 type of resource while ancient protector costs 2 types of resource therefor diminishing the value of at least one type of critical resource.

-They haven’t implemented the option to purchase claws (identified as blades in dota) at the ancient of wonders, therefor establishing the double wielded blades of the demon hunter as legitimate to his obvious offensive potential which would draw more attention to himself as opposed to archers so that a Quality E-sport Aggressive Playstyle could be conducted.

-They haven’t provided the options to switch at least one hero out with the shop so that say NE who has 3 agility heroes and no str heroes would be able to start with the druid whos bear summon has no slots (dota 2) so that it could be equipped with claws (note: not found at AoWonders) so as to draw more attention to it as opposed to archers. On top of this point, if proven wrong, they haven’t considered the option to provide an aura pool to choose from (of one’s own races auras) so that say druid and bear could start with the thorns aura so that a Quality E-sport Aggressive Playstyle could be conducted. (think POM with thorns potential as well) (Yes this adds up to a lot of power potential but this only works to serve my point even more that nothing has been done for something that has always been needed to be done)

-Finally, I wish I could make a point on the failure of the hero to hero counter system (but no real clue as to how that might potentially apply here) as that is what I’m currently working on with dota 2 and how the rock paper scissors counter system is broken due to the over correction of the mage vs warrior problem that nerfs block on ranged heroes. This is an over correction because as the intelligence class is composed of mostly ranged heroes, the intelligence stat never properly does its job of regenerating both mana AND LIFE (while strength would do something different) so that the ranged intelligence class would have the proper life regen (which = synergy with block) so that intel > agility would have been true along side the point that mage > warrior and so the nerf of block would have never ended up as an over correction as opposed to a loose correction so that a… what was it again? oh yeah… a Quality E-sport Aggressive Playstyle could be conducted.

Blizzard Entertainment: The pioneers of unbelievable, unbearable and unforgettably awful hypocrisy within presentation, aim, and advertisement.

Blizzard Entertainment: The company that really couldn’t squeeze another drop out of making it any more obvious that they are indirectly set out to destroy hope and the Quality of Soul in the form of: Will, Skill and Thrill…

Blizzard Entertainment: The crud company of crud people who couldn’t capitalize on the core business values of leadership and responsibility if their lives depended on it…

2

Next time you could just google “lorem ipsum” and copy\paste an equally meaningful post !
Even longer than yours !

4 Likes
3

Are you okay?

4 Likes
4

. . . uh. . . wut?

1 Like
5

There’s enough issues with the game at the moment without making new stuff up.

2 Likes
6

This game is a still born. The parents were irresponsible during the conception. No competitive play here ever.

2 Likes
7

@AnonTwo

Excuse me? you’re someone who just values eye candy as opposed core gameplay… Better graphics effectively means nothing unless it is on top of fixed core gameplay for the enhanced quality of the sport.

I can play a finely ran warcraft 3 whenever I want to… but I never will.

8

  1. None of the issues you’re saying are actual issues with the game. They’re personal opinions you have.

  2. This isn’t done in any other RTS game, so again, it’s purely personal opinion, there’s nothing backing up that this should be expected or required

  3. If you want it so much, make a custom map that does it and test how much people like it

  4. I was more talking about the bugs, desyncs, and false advertising complaints

  5. I don’t personally have any issues with how the RTS plays. Play a different RTS

1 Like
9

They are issues that I have with the actual game, the meta… where broken thinking questions my hope for humanity. Which is why I get passionate about it and you’re actually responding seriously showing that it is actually a serious problem.

10

Have you tried just making a custom map with your ideas and see how people enjoy it first? Your ideas are far too radical of changes to just be made on the fly.

1 Like
11

In an example on the dev commentary for the zerg philosophical problem… “there are a lot of theories” like back when they were experimenting with the nonsensical of tunneling bane lings and such…

They seem to like to try new things and here I am providing them with a host of directions and options in order to capture a sound picture overall so that they can man up and tackle their problem as obviously they are willing to do the work.

Yet they seem to be continually mislead by wrong assumptions

12

Zerg philosophical problem…a warcraft dev team was discussing starcraft balance, and not the starcraft or starcraft II dev team?

The thing is I doubt they even have a balance team extensive enough ton handle such widespread changes. Even then, that would be stuff for a warcraft IV, not warcraft III. it wouldn’t just change the meta it would change the entire game.

Starcraft 2 relies on tech trees as well.

Also you say they’re making wrong assumptions, under the assumption any assumption was made at all. They’re making fewer changes more than anything else.

13

Nothing of what I said actually changes the game from the game that it is except for one mere small factor… Movement Speed on one entity, which I am not even providing a numerical value for. Why? because that’s their job.

These are flexibility and conceptual problems relating to the core functions of the races also.

All addressable by proper game modes that they will not provide us so that we can understand and choose accordingly as the mass of players.

14

???

Even the most novice of RTS player knows this is one of the largest possible balance changes you could ever make in an RTS. It COMPLETELY changes the game.

I still feel you’re just making up reasons to be mad, because these requests are completely unreasonable of any RTS to do. Make a custom game with it.

1 Like
15

if you read the parenthesis it is in regard to complete freedom of the tech tree in regard to buildings which represents the tech tree, not reseachable or natural abilities.

Secondly, the warcraft tech tree is already half way to completely free as opposed to the starcraft completely restricted tech tree. I’m talking about game modes, game modes.

Game modes that take a step in the direction the game already points in.

16

I’m just gonna say for the final time: Why don’t you just make a map with the ideas you’re thinking of and see how it actually pans out?

It doesn’t have to have perfect balance but you can at least get a general idea of whether or not the game works the way you think it will.

Like what you’re requesting doesn’t even require custom triggers. All you’d have to do is edit object data.

1 Like
17

As far as sh**posts go, this one is not very good…

1 Like
18

A short walk of about 30 minutes through a park or forest can work wonders, I can recommend it. Much better than writing stuff in this forum since blizzard doesn’t care.

19

Condimentum id venenatis a condimentum vitae sapien pellentesque. Nunc congue nisi vitae suscipit tellus mauris a. Cras pulvinar mattis nunc sed blandit. Turpis egestas pretium aenean pharetra magna.

That leads to Quality E-sport Aggressive Playstyle

20

@AnonTwo

A final response here just so you fully understand where I am coming from though and how I may ultimately agree with you on your map editor suggestion…

I’ve had some political posts that I worked on around here but things are really starting to come together in my mind on the situation and what happened in starcraft and what could happen in this game in a political catastrophe kind of way…

See the direction that zerg could have taken going from starcraft to starcraft 2 could have gone two ways. The simple conservative approach or the deep liberal approach. So they acknowledged the idea that speed was an issue for zerg because what could have been changed in starcraft was that all the speed upgrades just upgrade instantaneously. This would be the conservative simple approach to addressing the broken philosophy of the race. There is one BIG problem though… this answer is too simple. You can’t have instantaneous speed upgrades, it’s too radical and out of place. But what did they do? they acknowledged the truth of it, and went in the simple conservative direction anyway and added movement speed on creep. But the truth is, is that when you have a non-flexible tech tree where you are trying to play the quality meta of “do not make units unless you are going to use them” then the answer becomes the deep liberal approach.

So in the deep liberal approach, which is and has always been the right approach… you have to acknowledge that linear produced units(queens) are out of place and are not the way to addressing the complete dimension of zerg production. In order for the linear side of production to complete the dimension of proper productivity for zerg it must be addressed in the fashion of their philosophy. The sacrifice of the drone for at least a 150 mineral thematic utility tool (comparable to shield battery and bunker) that when takes damage releases broodlings up to a potentially equivalent output of warrior power as zerglings lets say. But the catch here is that the broodlings have the same function as plague and cannot reduce an opponent beyond 1 life left.

So to explain this all simply, zerg needed broodlings on their basic fundamental tier 1 level applied in a “reactive” philosophy fashion that compensates the parallel production of zerg, still following their type of production (parallel), and has the same function concept as plague, not reducing the enemy beyond 1 life left.

Now the rabbit hole could go much further on the matter but I will not get in to it because this is obviously a starcraft 3 matter now. But the bottom line is that Blizzard’s failure was one of not understanding that because of the inflexible tech tree, and it should stay inflexible, that the deep liberal approach was the right approach, not the simple conservative one.

Ok, so why am I so concerned about warcraft 3 now?

Because let’s say we address the night elf problem as speed. What happens is that because warcraft is a totally different game, then addressing the speed problem of night elf becomes a liberal approach and not a conservative one. This is because we are talking about speed being applied to say, their mobile buildings during the day and their units by night. It’s a deep matter. All and all I feel like this is just another bad direction that night elf could go in, like zerg, in order to address the issue of their sacrificing workers for buildings (which is only partially for night elf)

So the solution here is actually the simple conservative approach… but this is a matter of just making the tech tree NEARLY COMPLETELY free as it already points in the direction of being free.

And so by doing this allows say, NE to rush mountain giants as an aggressively threatening option that could potentially end the game (because they have tree grab but wouldn’t be able to grab trees until tier 2 is hit)

And there probably needs to be two changes to the game in order to make something like this worthwhile…

So also implemented would be the aura pool option for the aura heroes exclusively. So say in NE case, the KOTG could get true shot instead of thorns and the POM could get thorns instead of true shot.

This way I could lump the two similar freedoms in to a particular game mode. Not sure what I would call the game mode though. But anyway… there is the big picture that you really need to understand so that you understand why it is critical to get this issue addressed.

The ultimate point is this though… if blizzard was willing to take the simple conservative approach for zerg in sc2, albeit being the wrong approach… How in the HELL could they not take the simple conservative approach for NE in wc3 when it is both the right approach and as simple as implementing a mode? Nothing really game changing in terms of concept at all…

*added:

The reasoning here once again goes like this…

The reason why speed is not the problem in warcraft 3 like it was assumed to be in starcraft is because if they were to do something with speed for NE they would be taking the wrong approach but in liberal fashion and therefor be choosing the wrong political answer in both cases.

Speed for archers at night or ancient protectors by day is apparently not the right answer for 2 critical reasons…

  1. Only half of NE structures require a wisp sacrificed(more or less)
  2. Neither the Archer or the Ancient protector are things that HAVE to be produced (meaning the philosophy of “don’t make units unless you are going to use them is correct”

NE doesn’t have to make archers because archers can ride hippos later
NE doesn’t have to make ancient protectors because ancients can already attack
Huntress is a unit that leans defensive in concept (tanky short range) so therefor they are not going to be used for quality e-sport worthy aggression

So because the right way to play is to not make units unless you are going to use them… then none of the tier 1 options are of any real ultimate use and so therfor pushes the game in to the BORING tech and defend direction when useful options could already be there if the tech tree was truly free in the way it implies to be free as a different game than starcraft, a completely restricted tree.