everyone hates towers, tanks and tons of other stuff. some people say you shouldnt play tanks because its not fair, no skill or not honorable.
in the following article someone gives a harsh and good answer against thsoe statements:
http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=34747
applying it to warcraft is simple, and anyway, everyone knows street fighter even a bit so theres no problem in understanding that article.

thus: lets "lame", don't mind what others say

in before "too long didn't read" ;D

well the article has one serious flaw

the problem is he compares it to real life situations like "you don't hit someone in the nuts is lame but smart and therefore losers whine about it" in that case it would be valid but in the case of wc3 it's beyond the point

lame strats in wc3 are limited to ONE side because in rl you actually can hit the other guy in the balls as well as he can you but you cant play a lame strat with orc the same way humans use towers

you get the point? its not about being a loser or something its about the game mechanics that are flawed

something is lame because it is limited to one side

but there is lame in an other way
like coming to a fistfight with a gun. it is ALSO LAME and it's also an honor thing

there are no "rules" in war but there is honor; like you don't kill prisoners although it is the "smarter" thing to do because you don't have to use resources to guard them and feed them however if you do that you will almost certainly ensure that the enemy will fight to the bitter end and that is what happened in WWII; russians simply refused to give up like they did in WWI because they knew how dishonorable the germans were

same thing in wc3
you are lame ppl refuse to prac with you, your lame strats will work but then when ppl get used to it you will lose (see sky very lame player was very successful now he cant beat a fly trapped in a glass)

If it's in the game it's viable and legit and therefore honorable. The rules say it is.

"lame strats in wc3 are limited to ONE side because in rl you actually can hit the other guy in the balls as well as he can you but you cant play a lame strat with orc the same way humans use towers "
then dont play ORC!

in real life honor counts anyway, we dont need to speak about it.

and well, i have no objection in what you say. maybe its really not applyable to wc3

btw i've read another article from that guy. its another topic, maybe youre interested in. and i would like to hear your opinion about this
http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=34750

in the second article he contradicts himself right from the beginning but his sentiment is right imo

he says that you can give games away and be beaten but its not that simple when he says you mess up counters etc; in wc3 for example if you are inexperienced and the opponent puts much pressure on you you will as a newbie probably forget to macro; mass up resources and even though you maybe winning the battles you will lose in the long run; that does not mean however that you lost because you did not care its that you are not that good yet; it's also important what you do after you lost that matters not only "how you lose"

but he is right
what separates the midlvl player from the pros is simply put: pros want to win and the only joy they take from competition is when they win
that's it period; you want to be good you have to have the iron resolve and will to do whatever it takes to win; you lose you analyze YOURSELF not the opponent; you find out what you screwed up because if you think you lost because he is better you have the wrong attitude; you lost the game it is about you and what you have to do to be better next time; if you make a mistake and you don't learn from it after wards you are hopeless

to cite general patton: "I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed."

you lose and laugh you are playing for fun and will never be something
you lose and are disappointed or angry you are playing to achieve something

ah i see. thank you for conveying your opinion and for your efforts.

i think the main point when he was talking about having fun, was that there are people who lie to themselves by saying "i just play for fun" when they loose, they use it as an excuse. while they can not have really fun with that attitude. but i think this cant be generalized as he does it.

there are ppl that play for fun but then they don't really care

ppl that can pull off lying when losing that it was just fun are used to losing thus they are not really putting an effort into the game
they end up taking shortcuts and cheat...

we have a natural incentive to win, because winning is surviving; games are like small cats playing with wool its practicing a skill vital for survival

@pan7heR

Infi has been way lamer than sky and look where lameness has got him...hes a super rising star
now

Sky has been in such a long slump simply becoz lameness does not fit in his in-game style. He used to be the most innovative and aggressive human player, but after ppl knew how to counter his aggressive strats he was forced to resort to lame. He himself said in an interview that he is not a very patient person, both in game and in real life. And no when it comes to laming many ppl lame better than him. The time when he rises back to top, it will be one of two possibilities: 1. He invents another aggressive strat that dominates other races like what happened in early 1.20, but thats rather unlikely; 2. He finally becomes accustomed to and adapt at laming.

orcs can tower and do mass bats against NE also

Yea, and it's actually fun to watch 1 in 1000 games :)

Blademaster isnt lame or?

yeah lets all play same race and same strat, then there is no lame!
...
go play dota

shit, as long you win its a win. and anyone would anything to win,
let's say u had the chance to win a million dollar right?
well then in ur mind u think, i'l do whatever it takes to win that million dollar.
that's how simply you can relate to this game.
peace.

about the first article. from the second site, theres the guy "Prozac`Nation" who clears all up.

phurrell, the main question was that if cheap strats do exist. the author said it doesnt cause of certain reasons. but like pan7her stated, it is wrong. because if there wouldnt be cheap strats, then everything should have to be as effective as it is difficult to perform. thus they are indeed cheap strats.
the only thing which could help is that all play the same race. but we dont need to talk about that.

but after this case youre right phurrell, its about if you should use it or not.

so the question about if cheap strategies do exist is better understand as: does imbalance exist? as long as theres imbalance, cheap strats do exist.

(sry for double post)

stupid thread... Play with towers is quite honorable.

a french guy talking about honor? ... sounds funny for me

hahaha TRUE!

Who cares about honor? You win or you lose, that's what realy matters. Doesnt matter how you won or lost. You can try overmicro footmans with defend with archers, you can try to kill undead with rifles. Is this honor? Its just stupid decision. Warcraft is too old, and every lame strat(tanks, destro, herofocus, bears, etc.)can be already considered as "oldskewl". The only honorable thing in wc3 is ability to write "GG" when you lose.

XD agree with your opinion

:D