|
On November 09 2015 02:29 Athenau wrote:
If you don't believe you've achieved your goals, then it's perfectly acceptable to list them for the future. Obviously.
I didn't expect you to the answer my loaded questions and you didn't. But if Blizzard listed those goals again because they didn't achieve their goals with LOTV, then you've offered a far more damning criticism of LOTV than I did. If you didn't intend to do that, then just stop dancing around semantically and say their post was a mess. You can like LOTV and the direction SC2 is going and still think that post is a mess.
And the fact is, they didn't create new goals.
|
But if Blizzard listed those goals again because they didn't achieve their goals with LOTV, then you've offered a far more damning criticism of LOTV than I did.
No? It's only "damning" if you create a false dichotomy. In other words, the only two outcomes are total success or complete failure and they failed, end of story, no further improvement possible. If you view balance and design as ongoing and iterative, the future isn't nearly so bleak.
I'd much rather Blizzard acknowledge and commit to necessary change then prematurely declare victory. They set some goals, they've made some progress, they're going to try and make more progress in the future. Nothing terribly controversial about that.
If you didn't intend to do that, then just stop dancing around semantically and say their post was a mess.
You're in no position to accuse anyone of playing semantic games.
|
gm and all master leagues in one? This will be a huge division won't it?
|
On November 09 2015 06:15 GGzerG wrote:
gm and all master leagues in one? This will be a huge division won't it?
Gm and master league in 10. They'll be a lot smaller than before, except gm, but gm wasn't a proper league to start with.
|
I'm baffled that this conversation even exists. The last time I saw a customer interested in a business' listed goals was literally never. Goals are something that middle management comes up with, includes in powerpoints, and designers go "oh that's nice, keep doing your job restating the obvious".
Literally everything listed in both their goals a year ago and the ones in the powerpoint last weekend are common sense.
Anyone who thinks that that powerpoint slide served any purpose other than to pad out the presentation is fooling themselves. They certainly wouldn't have included it if they thought for a second that people could manage to get -upset- over it.
I mean -really-, GOALS?! It's not even part of the game; it's words on a powerpoint presentation!
|
On November 09 2015 03:54 Athenau wrote:
You're in no position to accuse anyone of playing semantic games.
So please then, without any semantic games answer the question:
If you asked me to list my goals for the future, would you expect me to rehash achievements from my past?
Because that is exactly what they did. They talked about how great the Adept is, talked about how the starting work change is good, talked about new units, ect... they discussed achievements. Not things they did pretty good on, but might improve, they talked about solid achievements.
Achievement - Noun: something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed: his remarkable achievements in art.
You answered this question before by ignoring (semantics again...) the key word achievement, just like you ignored the word "had" when they were talking about future goals.
And that should pretty much end this.
On November 09 2015 14:12 dcemuser wrote:
I mean -really-, GOALS?! It's not even part of the game; it's words on a powerpoint presentation!
Yes Allen Iverson, we are talking bout PRACTICE!
If you can't even set goals and follow through with them, how do you expect to do anything more complicated productively? It isn't like the community asked for goals (as far as I can tell), they just came out with them and they set them. Then they can't even follow them. Why do you blame me for that, the messenger? These weren't business goals by the way.
You know who can do what they say when it comes to goals? The League of Legends team, look at their brilliant design blogs. And look where LoL is compared to SC2. Proof is always in the pudding, just like a build in SC2.
But that kind of attitude regarding goals is exactly why Michael Jordan has 6 rings and Allen Iverson has none. Don't think so? Ask Mike. He knew how important it was to set real goals, not fake business goals that no one at your company cares about. The fact your company wastes time with worthless words on a powerpoint says something.
https://www.providentnj.com/education-insights/business/the-michael-jordan-playbook-of-goal-setting
Have you ever looked at your professional peers and rankled with jealousy, wondering why they are being showered with rewards and recognition, snagging bonuses, earning promotions, generally succeeding and you are not?
It’s because they set better goals than you do.
"I'm a firm believer in goal setting. Step by step. I can't see any other way of accomplishing anything." - Michael Jordan
The measure of any person is whether or not they can do what they say they will do. That is the best way to judge people.
|
god imagine the devastation you will feel if you are unable to climb out of bronze 10
|
I used to be in Bronze. But then I made it to high Masters. I set goals.
Now I play LOL, and I'm in Platinum. I'll make it to Diamond. By setting goals.
|
I don't get what's bothering you, bronzeknee.
They said they had 5 goals in mind when doing the beta which they had achieved to some degree and they will continue trying to meet what they set the goal as in future.
Pretty logical for me.
|
They said they had five goals... after they said they had seven. And one of those five wasn't in the original seven...
Now if you don't mind Blizzard pulling the wool over your eyes that isn't a problem. If you don't mind Blizzard changing their goals, that is fine, but to me it is telling that they set such poor goals in the first place they had to change them. If you think setting goals is for stupid people that is fine too.
But goal setting is an important skill that as I mentioned with MJ, is common among the greats in any arena in life. Blizzard obviously isn't good at it, but people who don't understand goal setting will have no problem that. As another poster said "we're talking about goals" which I laughed when I read because it reminded me of when Allen Iverson said "we're talking about practice."
But a lot of people here are just Blizzard apologists. And no matter what Blizzard does, Blizzard can't be wrong. That is fine too, even logical to me because I know people get duped all the time.
User was warned for this post
|
You answered this question before by ignoring (semantics again...) the key word achievement, just like you ignored the word "had" when they were talking about future goals.
Your whole, ridiculous argument is semantics. Accusing me of playing games is chutzpah of the highest order.
If you asked me to list my goals for the future, would you expect me to rehash achievements from my past?
This is a stupid question, because no one is asking you anything. We're talking about a document that already exists, which lists the goals in the very first section, not someone asking someone else a question in isolation, without any context.
As such, going into more detail about what they've already done in the next section is a natural follow-up.
Go re-read this portion of my post. It's not that difficult:
If you don't believe you've achieved your goals, then it's perfectly acceptable to list them for the future. Obviously.
Edit: So it's not so much "rehashing achievements" as saying "these are my goals, this is what I've done already". If anything, you should be complaining about Blizzard not talking specifics (as opposed to creating new goals) about what they're working on going forward.
If you're going to criticize the form, do it right. What's wrong with the "Five Goals for the Future" section isn't that they talk about what they've already done in service of those goals, it's that they're missing the part about what they're working on going forward.
They said they had five goals... after they said they had seven. And one of those five wasn't in the original seven...
It's obvious to anyone who can read that the "new" five goals are congruent with the original goals, since they boil down to "more action" and "more micro". There's no discrepancy there that needs to be attributed to malice or even intent. Of course I've addressed this already, but you like to ignore answers that you find inconvenient:
Show nested quote +According to what the Blizzard team has said between these two blogs, they missed a substantial amount of the goals. Yeah, you _could_ make that unjustified inference. Or, you could apply Occam's Razor and realize that it's more likely that they didn't bother to reread the original (more detailed) post when they wrote this one.
|
On November 09 2015 17:28 BronzeKnee wrote:
They said they had five goals... after they said they had seven. And one of those five wasn't in the original seven...
Now if you don't mind Blizzard pulling the wool over your eyes that isn't a problem. If you don't mind Blizzard changing their goals, that is fine, but to me it is telling that they set such poor goals in the first place they had to change them. If you think setting goals is for stupid people that is fine too.
But goal setting is an important skill that as I mentioned with MJ, is common among the greats in any arena in life. Blizzard obviously isn't good at it, but people who don't understand goal setting will have no problem that. As another poster said "we're talking about goals" which I laughed when I read because it reminded me of when Allen Iverson said "we're talking about practice."
But a lot of people here are just Blizzard apologists. And no matter what Blizzard does, Blizzard can't be wrong. That is fine too, even logical to me because I know people get duped all the time.
Well let's be honest, your argument is as pointless as saying it isn't blizzard, it is blizzard sc2 team and go on arguing about the importance of how you can't even differentiate a team and a company etc and how the importance of the correct definition in every day aspect.
And I don't think setting goals are for stupid people, where did you even get the vibe?
|
On November 09 2015 03:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
And what are these Five Goals for the Future? They wrote this heading and then... nothing... they talked about how great the Adept is, and then forgot about the heading and their blog wandered aimlessly. I can't even make this up.
Funny how you are making such a big deal about them "not listing any new goals", when your reading comprehension has failed you and you completely are twisting what they said.
They stated the panel focused on their goals. They stated doing their whole multiplayer design for LotV they have focused on 5 goals. They listed those 5 goals.
Then the next section is titled "Five Goals for the Future". Nowhere does this state they are going to be creating 5 new goals. They already listed the 5 goals directly before they said that! They are simply stating that those 5 goals are for the future, meaning they are intended to make SC2 a better game going in to the future.
Nowhere did they state they are making "5 new goals". That is your assumption that you built off things have never said. That is not their bad, that is YOUR bad.
If you want to make assumptions that is fine, if you want to be pissed off at them because your unhappy with their direction that is fine too. But if you want to make a big deal about something that you clearly misinterpreted, and accuse them of saying things they never said, you are just making yourself look like a fool, not them.
|
This feels like being negative for the sake of it at this point...
|
Nowhere did they state they are making "5 new goals". That is your assumption that you built off things have never said. That is not their bad, that is YOUR bad.
Partially this seems to stem from a misunderstanding on what goals are like in a business context. You don't evaluate success in goals the way bronzeknee seems to think. You don't "accomplish" big goals, you improve on them but there is always room for improvement. (Unless of course there is a number in the goal, if there is you damn well better accomplish it ) but apart from that Goals are often vague and unattainable but you'd break them up to smaller objectives that align with that goal and use those to measure your success. So if your goal is to increase early game skirmishes, a measurable objective for that is "add a new core Protoss unit that has harass potential but isn't useless later in the game." Looking back bliz can see the adept and conclude they made progress on their original goal.
|
United States12238 Posts
The "Blizzard had/didn't have goals" tangent ends here. There are tons of other and far more interesting/relevant topics to pick from the OP.
|
I think I said this in another thread but I'm beyond excited for the 1-10 subdivisions. I know I don't really have the time/skill/motivation to grind back up to Masters. But every so often I get the itch to play SC2 again and I can move from Plat to Diamond in just a few weeks. So for me the grind really ends there because the gulf between a Diamond and Masters player, I feel, is pretty large. But now with Diamond 1-10 I can set more reasonable goals of "Get Diamond4 this season" and "Get Diamond3" for my next season goal. Previously it was just "Get in Diamond and your rank doesn't even matter."
|
On November 10 2015 02:34 Tenks wrote:
I think I said this in another thread but I'm beyond excited for the 1-10 subdivisions. I know I don't really have the time/skill/motivation to grind back up to Masters. But every so often I get the itch to play SC2 again and I can move from Plat to Diamond in just a few weeks. So for me the grind really ends there because the gulf between a Diamond and Masters player, I feel, is pretty large. But now with Diamond 1-10 I can set more reasonable goals of "Get Diamond4 this season" and "Get Diamond3" for my next season goal. Previously it was just "Get in Diamond and your rank doesn't even matter."
Good point.
I am not going to attempt to play competitive in LotV. I do not want to get burned out. With WoL I tried to move to the top, and it made the game very stressful, and if i was not able to practice for 2 or 3 days then my skill level dropped dramatically.
In LotV beta, I did not "try" to compete, and turns out I did not have any issues with skill dropping without practice. Sometimes I didn't play for a week, yet still felt fresh and functional once I did have a chance to play.
You know what? That was one of the big issues separating SC2 from SC/BW for me. SC/BW I was able to play with friends kinda like a party game, we would be "passing the keyboard" taking turns with online matches, not play for awhile then play again like it was NP. SC2 was not like that for me. The urge to compete felt more forced, the things you had to be aware of, scout, and watch out for was much higher in number. Felt like the "routine" had many more steps you had to always keep in ur mind.
So I was quite shocked to play LotV, only having a fraction of the amount of play time these days, and not be having any issues. I'm not sure what exactly changed either, although the shorter games probably has something to do with it.
And I came in to the game extremely rusty, not playing HotS for a long time. I was surprised that even my first days in beta, there were many players just as bad as me. And I was also surprised that just playing casually and not trying to compete, I seen myself ranking up from league to league and felt the improvement, without any of the stress.
So now the new rank system will probably work along with that nicely. It's great to feel progression, even if it is in small baby steps.
In earlier SC2 versions, if you didn't put in all that work, it felt basically like it's not worth it to play, you will "never be able to compete". But now.... In the end, I'm hoping the "feeling" I get from LotV will stay this way. That feeling where I can actually play StarCraft like a "regular game" without grinding my ass off trying to practice and compete every second of the day, and still progress, and more importantly, have fun.
I don't know if I will ever work my way up to Masters without investing more time/effort, but if things are the same as they were in beta, I'm fairly confident I will be able to function in Diamond. And tbh that is all I could ask for out of SC2 these days with my schedule.
Hoping for the best!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
