your home for Starcraft Home Forum Starcraft Tournaments

"You don't have to be korean to beat your protoss, because you collapse under heavy metal like an old woman with a broken hip."

#1 wakiki[164747]
#2 neovipe[164749]
oh damn, i was about to get last post, but too late.
#3 Psyonic_Reaver[164750]
Awesome report! You had me on the edge of my seat the whole game. I loved how you would show the mini portraits of the units and then outline them with how much health they had green/orange/red. The action was constant and quite rewarding. I was also sure you guys were getting the snot beat out of you but that's just how WC3 is. 1 battle can really turn a game around.

I give it a 9, maybe a 10.
#4 NewbEye[164752]
Captivating visuals, masterful presentation, and text that nicely illustrates the battles and game flow. It's reports like this that make me wish I knew more about WC3 than "it has humans and orcs in it."
#5 [164753]
This sounds too good to pass up. I'll give it a go after a bit, gonna eat first and maybe get involved in something else but I'll try to rate it in the next couple of days at least.

I know nothing about war3. Whether that bodes well or ill for your rating is yet to be seen.
#6 Augury[164754]
Comments with content from people who've read the report! My heart is warmed.

Unfortunately, I suspect that a large percentage of this site's visitors do not play or are familiar with Warcraft.
#7 [164755]
Holy hell that was nice. As I said I know literally nothing about war3 so I was basically lost from beginning to end as to what everything was and what they did but the game seemed really, really good. And the writing was solid and fluid and enthralling. But the game seemed to make it very easy to write well about (not even knowing the game it seemed pretty one-sided for quite awhile).

I read this all the way through and was excited to find out what happened, which I think is the biggest compliment I can give you since that's coming from somebody with no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter.

So to review: Obviously I can't comment on anything strategic or whatnot so as far as I know that was all brilliant pro-level stuff. The game, though I have no understanding of war3 mechanics (or 2v2 mechanics in any game really) seemed really good. If this was just the strength of your writing, then kudos for the effect. ;) The writing was very good, easy to follow the action even though I didn't understand the spells or units which is no small feat. The pictures were very nice, captured the action really well and weren't overly flashy.

To review more succintly: it kicked ass and I loved it. But I don't know if I "10" loved it. This is definitely at least a 9, in my book, and I'm not sure if I think it's only a nine. Hopefully you won't mind if I take some time to think this over and make up my mind. If you do, go whine to DD or something.
#8 Psyonic_Reaver[164756]
Give him the 10 Maareek!!!

I perfectly understand WC3 talk and let me tell you, I haven't seen writing like this since CB's WC3 reports. I could follow the game perfectly and I know what spells he was using. That's why I am also "Wow"ed by this report. I can feel the power to BR raising within me once again.
#9 [164757]
This writing is just too damn strong. As I said, with no knowledge of the game I was feeling your frustration in those middle battles and your triumph at the end. I can't find anything I feel it needs or is missing and I can't find anything that detracts from the feel of the report. I have nothing but good things to say, and I never thought I'd say that about, well, anything to do with war3. ;p

Most likely someone else will rate you down, but maybe not. Enjoy this ten, anyway. ^_^
#10 Augury[164759]
Hm. I would've posted again earlier, but I was trying to think of a way to phrase my comment such that I could thank people without implying that I'm writing for ratings (which I'm not, otherwise I'd write a whole lot more br's) or whoring for praise (again which I'm not, some constructive criticism would actually be welcome). Apparently I couldn't think of how to write this other than the straightforward way so I gave up =P

Maareek: I appreciate the time and effort you've put into reading and rating this. I was a bit surprised to find a detailed review in the comments section.

Psyonic_Reaver + Newbeye: Thanks for leaving some comments. I think most people would only post if they had flames, so the nice posts are warming when they do come.
#11 Clay[164762]
Great report! The game itself was so close the whole way, and you captured it PERFECTLY!

#12 Agent_of_Sol[164763]
Clearly a great game, but I had a little trouble following it.

I think that the complexity of the game really hurts the first person perspective it's told from. I like the style, because it makes the game seem more immediate and exciting, but I would have liked to have more comments about the other side's movements and also general strategic comments. It seems from the report that except for your early game switches from rifles back to footmen and then back to rifles, everyone stuck with their initial plans. Your comment early that other abnormal decisions were made makes me wonder if that's really it, or it the report is missing something.

I was also a little thrown by the abrupt ending. My assumption throughout was that you were losing tactical battles by narrow margins but preserving your key units and hitting their expansions and building up a resource advantage, but the report doesn't confirm this explicitly.

As you can probably tell by now, I don't really play WCIII anymore, mostly because I tend to be more interested in strategic rather than tactical thinking. Also, I have a huge WoW, um, problem.

OK, with all of that said, I have to close by saying that I enjoyed the report, and it was really great to wander by and find a new report that obviously had a lot of care put into it. And the summeries of the armies before each battle were really nice.

#13 Augury[164764]
Agent_of_Sol: Your assumption is correct, and you're a keen observer. Originally I was planning on touching up the first draft of the report with more overall flow-type additions and inserting more strategic asides, but I'm a lazy person and I stopped at the grammar and spell check. It's a bit odd actually: it felt like there was this long adrenaline high while I was writing the report to get the report done and presented reasonably well, but the day after I finished writing all desire to enhance the job completely died away.

I think the first person perspective versus the bird's eye view is give or take: I'll try to choose one or the other but I'd rather mix them as little as possible if I can help it. Of course, this leads to consequences such as the ones you've mentioned - suddenly things happen and there's no prior explanation or indication. I was actually hoping to fit in inserts about production and builds at the home base and a bit of "reasons behind decisions" type stuff that would fit in well with a first person scope but like I said... adrenaline, laziness...

If you're interested in my take on the "What went wrong" and "How they won" strategic stuff, I'm happy to spell out my perspective: (Ah, this probably would've been in the report in a less condensed form) - EDIT: this comment's getting too long so perhaps I won't unless someone requests =P

The abrupt ending was actually intentional - from my experience, there are usually better responses when there isn't a long cooldown after multiple climax points. However, I'll agree that the lack of an openly stated overall picture throughout the report detracted from how I finished it.

I'm sorry to hear about the huge WoW, um, problem. I hear there's ways to break out, but unfortunately I don't have details, no details...
#14 Trynant[164766]
I liked how you titled each part of the report as separate seasons, which really suited the way the battle turned out. Spot on with the presentation; it's good to see what units each player has during a major battle.

I noticed that Artic said "gg" during the middle of the game when his team assaulted deevine's natural, yet this wasn't mentioned in the battle-report. I just thought it was damn funny he did that.

The outcome of that match surprised me, with a destroyed natural and against three heroes with ultimates the game turned in your favor.

wow indeed
#15 PeaceableGhost[164768]
I found this interesting - I don't play much WarIII, still trying to bring my SC game up to scratch. Great writing, though, was easy to follow. I give this about a 9.5 though, because the ending just sort of ended. Everything else was perfect.

BTW, did I miss something or did you really get very few hero kills (if any) before the end?
#16 [164769]
I guess I'm the only one who thought the abrupt ending suited the report well? I mean, I've played enough 2v2 in BW to know that many times one big battle changes things completely and if the other team is experienced and good at the game they know it's over and leave. I don't figure War3 is much different in that department. Seemed to be what was going on here, if the game/report would have gone on longer it would have just been floundering around waiting for the end.
#17 Augury[164772]
Trynant: Luck beats skill. Lightning orb purges on the first attack kill blademasters, DHs forgetting to use metamorphosis loses battles. Just kidding, skill is pretty important too :P

After the main gold mines busted, the other team didn't do a good job with maintaining a steady income which hurt them a lot. By the time we fought the last battle they were pretty much out of resources.

PeaceableGhost: Been a few days since I wrote the report so I'm not 100% positive, but I think we only killed a hero once before the last fight.
#18 micro[164773]
nice report. i almost want to brush the dust off of my war3 cd :o

i thought the segement titles were a reference to the movie Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring, until it got to the end.

Who was the second rater? did maar double rate?
#19 [164778]
The identity of the second rater is unknown, and maar did not second rate. I don't guess it's a big deal since I was fairly sure somebody was gonna give this a nine, but it seems kind of inconsiderate to rate a report of this caliber without at least leaving some sort of comment. I mean, if it was good enough to be given a nine isn't it good enough to at least take a few seconds to type "good job" or something? :/
#20 [164780]
It was not the newbster, either.

I still want to read this. I will by tommorow, promise!
#21 [164784]
You mean, like you promised to finish that report you had like 90% completed or w/e? You remember, back like 4 months ago or something (longer? I'm not looking it up). Yeah, no trust for your promises son. ;p
#22 [164789]
Hey I didn't promise that shit man
#23 [164797]
Whoops, I meant to promise "this weekend" but couldn't quite get that down either.

This was quite a battle, easily the best I've read in months (maybe the best this year).

My only suggestion for improvement would be to stick to your presentation. You mentioned early how you were going to use some weird strategy, but didn't elaborate on it very much. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't tell who was winning until it was over -- and by over I mean *over*. I wasn't a fan of the abrupt end.

But I guess this is just because I haven't played warcraft in years -- I was able to follow what was going on but not what it all meant.

Everything else was awesome, especially how you covered the battles. The game was absolutely gripping and aside from the lack of strategic narrative was very well written.

Good enough for a 9.x
#24 Psyonic_Reaver[164801]
Lucky. Warcraft 3 1v1? GOGOGO!
#25 [164842]
10 from me, masterful presenation, loved the way you showed who had what units with the mini icons, nice!
#26 [164844]
So the mystery rater remains
#27 Raider[164867]
Great report and wonderful presentation. Both the writing and the game kept me guessing till the very end as to who was going to win, which is a hallmark of a good report.

Great job.
#28 mofoer[164869]
wow augury i was wanting to see some of you and deevine's replays for awhile (since me and slonez/ender always wonder how you guys do so well in 2s) and stumbled across this. really amazing, i still don't know how you fight battles with such large number of units with so few actions (around 80-90 mean apm?) that's really amazing, if you're ever up for some custom 2s or 3s, i'm always for it =)
#29 Possumo[164872]
Brilliant Report. Along with Who's Got The Lag, your the only good WC3 reporters left!
Very good game obviously, but like others said, it sometimes was unclear exactly what was happening, what strategy you and your partner planned, and there wasn't many personal comments made about either side (such as their "gg" before the attack on your allies expo, comon that's begging for a slight joke!), and perhaps some humor could of been added in, but that's just personal preference, and I'm sure it's no coincidence that the vast majority of the best reports are not exactly full of jokes, just very good, presentation, spelling and grammar etc, which along with a very good game such as this one, makes it stand above the rest.

Please continue writing!
#30 Augury[164873]
Whoa, there are some comments a month after the report was posted.

micro: I've never seen or heard of that movie, but I was actually considering titling the last part "...and Spring." I decided against it because I thought that it'd give away the winner.

LN and JV: thanks for reading and rating

Le: Aside from the two on this site, I don't think I ever put up the 2v2 replays from Darren and me. Anything out there was put up by others.

Even back in '03 my APM has always been far below average of what some people consider skilled play. If you're like me and your hand speed is slow, then the way to win is to have better battle positioning and a sharper sense of tech/expand timing than your opponents. Or have an ally who takes all the damage so you can focus on offense :P

I think APM is pretty overrated. If my average APM is 60-70 while using two control groups, it becomes 85-95 when I use three. When moving my army across the map, if i spam an attack move command two times instead of once (not to mention three to six times or more), my APM will rise from 85-95 to 115+, etc. Just adding in useless actions and more control groups can raise APM without increasing efficiency.

I agree that it can be used as a rough measure though - If I could do twice as many (efficient) actions then my APM would boost up to around 110 and my "inflated APM would be hitting 200s. But I'm not fast.

Possumo: I'm not planning on playing any more ladder in the future (unless deev or his brother wants to). About the "gg" comment - in my opinion it would be spiteful to include that in the report. I'm not aiming for some sort of "revenge." I picked the game because it was the closest one out of the ones that we played recently.
#31 Feanor[164893]
WHOA, this is like... well, I cant think of a word imressive enough to describe it properly. A clear ten from my point of view.
As the previous commenters already said everything important about the report let me just state the following: With the reporting masters of the past retired, you truly are the new (non admin/rater) god of

Post a comment of your own here

You are not cleared to post comments, because we don't know you're not a spambot!

To comment, please Verify yourself now. [Requires cookies!]

Back to the Battle Report