EPTLings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SCM.geauxsu
United States56 Posts
| ||
|
SpeCtor
233 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:34 Flowjo wrote: Jesus Christ, so many idiots on the internet that can't understand this article lawl, sigh why do I bother to even read the comments. + Show Spoiler + On December 04 2012 05:31 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Tl;dr at bottom of post Ver, I applaud your efforts for what seems to be some kind of humor. It is obviously hard to write a very good satire. But your intentions and messages can be interpreted in too many ways. With some background knowledge of you and Monk and what Monk said regarding this thread, your intentions and messages can be made clearer, but it is still quite unclear exactly what your points are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but only the ending is similar to A Modest Proposal. The usage of only alluding to A Modest Proposal in the end can, by itself, be interpreted in many ways. For example, by copying the style of A Modest Proposal's last paragraph, are you simply trying to make his thread humorous, to contrast the seriousness of most of the post? Are you copying the style of A Modest Proposal to similarly show the ridiculousness of a need to nerf Zerg, as it was ridiculous for babies to be suggested to be eaten? Are you saying that Zerg is indeed dominating, but are criticizing people who think Blizzard buffed zerg just so that foreigners can win more (there aren't many people who say/believe this) Maybe you are criticizing both people who think Zerg is dominating and people who think Blizzard wants zerg to be the strongest and wants foreigners to win? There's many other things I can think about, but these are just on the top of my head. Past these interpretations, there's still the trouble of figuring out the specifics of the target people that you're criticizing, and your opinion on how they should change. With Monk's post it's more clear what the general direction of your satire is, but with just Ver's post alone, I think it is open for too many interpretations. Another thing I don't like about this post is that, unless you disagreed with Monk and felt many would indeed understand it (and if this is the case please disregard this), if you are posting this with the intention of only a few people understanding this and hoping to get some laughs from this -- while it may be funny to see people to fail to understand your satire, you and others can't really blame them; there is simply too much evidence to support many different interpretations of your post. If you posted this with the intention of only a few people understanding it, is that not a form of laziness? If not (and I'm sure it's not, because you obviously put lots of effort into this!), I would like to offer some feedback. I don't think it's a good satire if not many people can understand it. A Modest Proposal is written in a humorous way that is easily understandable ( at least in our more sophisticated, modern, and educated society than in its time ) and has messages and points that are clearly discernible. Now obviously it must have taken you a long time to write this; I'm not trying to make a personal attack "omg you failed to make a satire as well written as someone as famous as John Swift! I as a person deserve to read better articles written for free!" but would like to give my feedback that overall, the satire should have been clearer. Tl;dr nice humorous post, didn't understand it at first, and still see too many interpretations that are possible, would have liked you to make it clearer because posting an unclear satire on a site like TL isn't such a good idea to me (majority of discussion/comments aren't even discussing/commenting on the right things, as seen by people being offended by the "racism") the quality of reactions to this thread and the comments is insanely varried. Here s an example of a 0/10 and a 10/10 answer | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
| ||
|
mYiKane
Canada1772 Posts
| ||
|
onPHYRE
Bulgaria923 Posts
It is very sad how many people in here "agree with EVERY point" you made.. If someone cannot see after reading the entire thing that you are being comical then they are exactly the type of person that perpetuates balance whine in this game without ever being satisfied. I remember there were still Terran tears here and there when Code S was 70% T.. Those are the type of people that can never be happy and always feel like the victim. | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Felvo
United States124 Posts
What I disagree with is a couple of the points made about how entire armies can be lost within a blink of an eye. It seems to me that you argue that games should not be decided within small seconds. However, although I do agree that one engagement shouldn't really end a game (obviously excluding some all-ins), I also think that looking at your army as much as possible and tiny slip-ups fall under skill of a pro-gamer. It's a pro-gamer's ability to manage his or her army well and if he or she is looking away for one small second the enemy may attack and crush the army. It's a player's ability to constantly control an army, constantly position, and to constantly engage well that really decides battles. I do agree with most of the points you make and I do think that there needs to be a change to the late game composition of zerg, especially in ZvP. In ZvT I think that possible better transitions need to be figured out or designed somewhere in the game. Overall, interesting post with some insight I liked and some I didn't. Nice read either way. ^ ^ | ||
|
Miotonir
Poland66 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:39 Twistacles wrote: That's not what I said? I said for mech to work you need to roast a lot of drones. I'm talking about a marine tank +2/+2 push, which doesn't need roasted drones to work Basing ur game on single atack is bad and im not the best player in the world and i know it. If this is terran mentality then no wonder terrans are losing. I dont care how long the game goes i want to keep crippling my opponent bit by bit , i might do a timing push , but i dont overcommit to it. Outright saying either 2/2 150 supply push or u loose is silly raw and comical | ||
|
Soulblighter
Russian Federation4 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/erBlq.png) | ||
|
stew_
Canada239 Posts
| ||
|
SHOOG
United States1639 Posts
Blizzard seems so evil now haha. | ||
|
Flowjo
United States928 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:49 Soulblighter wrote: http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=Z&season=0&leaguetype=0&leagueid=0&gamever=1.5.3&mapid=0 wow... that is abysmal win rates. But seriously, we need a nerf now. | ||
|
R3DT1D3
285 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
both of them were hilarious though i hope protosses never take dominance, they had their 1 week in beta stage where warptech was almost instant, was enough imo | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:31 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Tl;dr at bottom of post Ver, I applaud your efforts for what seems to be some kind of humor. It is obviously hard to write a very good satire. But your intentions and messages can be interpreted in too many ways. With some background knowledge of you and Monk and what Monk said regarding this thread, your intentions and messages can be made clearer, but it is still quite unclear exactly what your points are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but only the ending is similar to A Modest Proposal. The usage of only alluding to A Modest Proposal in the end can, by itself, be interpreted in many ways. For example, by copying the style of A Modest Proposal's last paragraph, are you simply trying to make his thread humorous, to contrast the seriousness of most of the post? Are you copying the style of A Modest Proposal to similarly show the ridiculousness of a need to nerf Zerg, as it was ridiculous for babies to be suggested to be eaten? Are you saying that Zerg is indeed dominating, but are criticizing people who think Blizzard buffed zerg just so that foreigners can win more (there aren't many people who say/believe this) Maybe you are criticizing both people who think Zerg is dominating and people who think Blizzard wants zerg to be the strongest and wants foreigners to win? There's many other things I can think about, but these are just on the top of my head. Past these interpretations, there's still the trouble of figuring out the specifics of the target people that you're criticizing, and your opinion on how they should change. With Monk's post it's more clear what the general direction of your satire is, but with just Ver's post alone, I think it is open for too many interpretations. Another thing I don't like about this post is that, unless you disagreed with Monk and felt many would indeed understand it (and if this is the case please disregard this), if you are posting this with the intention of only a few people understanding this and hoping to get some laughs from this -- while it may be funny to see people to fail to understand your satire, you and others can't really blame them; there is simply too much evidence to support many different interpretations of your post. If you posted this with the intention of only a few people understanding it, is that not a form of laziness? If not (and I'm sure it's not, because you obviously put lots of effort into this!), I would like to offer some feedback. I don't think it's a good satire if not many people can understand it. A Modest Proposal is written in a humorous way that is easily understandable ( at least in our more sophisticated, modern, and educated society than in its time ) and has messages and points that are clearly discernible. Now obviously it must have taken you a long time to write this; I'm not trying to make a personal attack "omg you failed to make a satire as well written as someone as famous as John Swift! I as a person deserve to read better articles written for free!" but would like to give my feedback that overall, the satire should have been clearer. Tl;dr nice humorous post, didn't understand it at first, and still see too many interpretations that are possible, would have liked you to make it clearer because posting an unclear satire on a site like TL isn't such a good idea to me (majority of discussion/comments aren't even discussing/commenting on the right things, as seen by people being offended by the "racism") I second this. If this is satire, it leaves we wondering what specific genre/mode/problem the OP is satirizing. I'm assuming it's a satire of conspiracy theorists as the notion that Blizzard is competent enough to engineer anything is quite hilarious. But that said, the humor is uneven to the point that I didn't even feel the sarcasm until late into the piece. Furthermore, to echo the above poster, I can't tell where the OP stands. In "A Modest Proposal," it is evident that Swift is either advocating for a series a sensible reforms for Irish poverty (not eating children) or critical of the overall social-imperative to fix through quasi-rational (and often ridiculous) schemes. Where does the OP stand? Even in satire, as a reader, I want to understand what the author believes. What is the OP primarily critical of? Should Blizzard not patch? Should Western audiences cave-in and stop being drawn-in the Koreans vs the world formula? tl;dr Compelling satire is directed at a specific and easily identifiable problem (you identify a hodgepodge of problems) and contains some identifiable position (the OP simply critiques and debunks). | ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
| ||
|
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
| ||
|
Miotonir
Poland66 Posts
| ||
|
Soulblighter
Russian Federation4 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
| ||
