|looks good, i'll read later|
|Wow, this is quite long. I haven't finished it yet - I will tomorrow.|
I really like the strategic thoughts and discussion that you include in this. I don't think the exact stats on everything are necessary, however(like the fact that team two used 3 charges of a Wand of Necromancy in the third battle which took place on the second Warcraft day at dawn during the time period of one minute and fifteen seconds). That is a little cluttery. Perhaps, just note roughly how large the armies were and what units were used.
What WOULD be cool would be to name your battles(instead of "Battle 1" etc.) - of course, this could turn out to be really corny / stupid-sounding if you are bad with names(like me).
But the strategic thoughts were good(for example, your description of how the middle creeps on the map change the strategies used). I think I learned alot, and I've only read half of it so far.
|Been al long time since I read a wc3 report this good. I agree with most of what wakiki said. Although naming the battles is stupid: netx thing you know someone is going to suggest naming continents in sc maps. |
|This was great. Good to see a WarCraft III Battlereport once in a while.|
One thing though: I realized that especially in the early battles the opposing army consisted mostly of summons. I never read you dispelled any of them, maybe this is something you didnt mention (I didn't watch the replay yet), but maybe this is something that might improve your game :P
Great report, with almost Raider-like insights in strategic thought.
8,5 / 10
|Well this is an easy 9.something in my book. I have to go to school now, but from what I've read, this, in my opinion, is your best yet. The insight and details were excellent as always, but I loved how you added such simple pictures into the report to complement your writing.|
I'm going to say a 9-9.5, and can only say that you may want to spread your paragraphs out a bit more (it was congested at some points). I hope to finish this when I get back, but nice job!
|I love how you are developing a history of anti-climatic endings - it doesn't what people remember you by, as long as you get remembered, right?|
Anyway. Report was marvelous - the little strategy tidbits that you've included in most your reports (i think?) still work wonderfully. Definetly keep that up. As for wakiki's argument on too much information, I'd have to agree. For example, your fairly long description of where the War3 clock is, and what it shows. I'm still a fan of the icons displaying the army before each conflict, really gives you a birds eye view of everything.
|Really nice report. I love how you can make war3 seem fun ;) Your description of the game and and battles is just great.|
The anticlimatic ending was a minus, but that's not your fault. The rest of the game was awesome.
The pictures were a bit dark, (but that might be the school comp I am on tho the minitor seems nice) and nothing special, but the text more than made up for that.
|I loved it. 9.4. |
The descriptions were sex. They are there, but they're easy to ignore if you don't like them. The clock thing was a bit long, but he had a major purpose in putting it in, so I'm going to say that's ok. Maybe trim things like that down next time.
Sexcellent report, other then that.
|Your descriptions of the battles were absolutely fantastic. I'm giving the report a 9 for those alone. However, you should have described the last battle in just as much detail, even if it was one-sided. |
|This looks promising. It's been too long since I saw the purple. |
|nice nice nice |
good report, loved the description of the battles:D
|OMG OMG OMG....|
Great stuff and even though you are probably my only hope when it comes to wc3 br's, as long as you are around the future looks bright :D
|Thanks for the comments and ratings.|
It seems that I still need to find a balance between the amount of detail I'm willing to devote to in a BR. I enjoy finding the pre- and post-battle unit count stats and adding the little icons, but it's pretty time-consuming too. I think on future BRs i'll try to take in less info per battle while trying to maintain descriptions of what each player is doing with thier micromanagement.
Anti-Climatic endings... yeah, there tends to be a trend for me where I'll watch a replay and think "hey, this is a close game" before discovering upon further investigation that the game was lost by some lame mistake. I usually find myself disgusted with the losing player part-way through making a BR so these things tend to not get done. Not sure what I can do about that, maybe either aim for an attitude change or find some completely amazing game O.o
|sucked in a good way|
I got bored, but it wasn't you. Just the enormous of amount of pointless text put me into a coma from which I will probably never return.
I liked it.
|Information-wise I found this report to be very good. The strategy tips and battle descriptions were very informative and helped to describe what was happening and why. As was said earlier, it did pass somewhat over into excessive information but that depends on the readers' interest and knowledge of the game.|
Entertainment-wise I did feel this report was slightly impaired by the excessive information, but then like I said earlier it really does depend on the reader. The ending was anti-climatic and brief. From an entertainment perspective you could've ended the game with the 6th conflict because the remainder of the game went downhill from there (Of course it would've detracted information-wise).
The usual array of grammar issues that appear in most reports. Usual so mostly disregardable. You did have a bunch of changes in tenses with past and present. Sometimes using present tense in past tense situations, etc.
For the strategy and battle descriptions I would give the report a 9, but entertainment-wise it felt more of an 8. While it isn't a great part of a rating, it does have something to do with it. I'd say its an 8.5-8.9, didn't quite feel like a 9 to me though overall so I give it an 8.
As for style (which is personal so I didn't really include it above) I personally like the colored player name but it isn't necessary. The strategy boxes I thought could've been reduced slightly in size (to looking like inset boxes) because they looked like alternating colored chapters rather than than strategy notes.
P.S. It did also seem that you were more harshly critical of your opponents than your own team.
the clock explanations and information about what items were used in a battle were a little bit of information overkill
the explanations were good to an extent - they were clearly designed for someone who hasnt played warcraft much, but the explanations were fairly simplified for more advanced players (for example, you say LT promotes fast expanding because of the middle creeps, but dont mention that they only factor in in 1/4th of the possible matchups and even then, only during the day) but you seemed to be catering to newbies / sc players anyways.
however, you were somewhat erratic about what you explained and what you did.
for example, you go into a lot of detail about how day and night affects unit vision, but dont explain why riflemen are good against huntresses or what. most newbies will pick up immediatly on the day/night changes because they are so visual, but may miss damage types.
the reports on single battles were good, but i think that a few more screenshots would have gone a long way. i'm paticulary thinking of the elf base, which decided a couple fights.
overall, this was a good report though. 7.5-8
|"UDvUD harassment is pretty weak (if used at all). "|
|Also, too many unexplained acronyms. I've played this game, and what is an AoE?|
Finally read it. -_-