EPTFurthermore, should we strip all rhetoric from this article, I fear it would get lost in hundreds of threads written in a similar style created not only on TL, but also on the Battlenet forums.
Razzia of the Blizzsters - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. | ||
|
linuxguru1
110 Posts
Furthermore, should we strip all rhetoric from this article, I fear it would get lost in hundreds of threads written in a similar style created not only on TL, but also on the Battlenet forums. | ||
|
aRyuujin
United States5049 Posts
"Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy cellars of the modern alchemists’ museums." http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=151 | ||
|
v_lm
France202 Posts
it was overly flowery Most of what he wrote is addressing a specific matter in a very clear way. I think you can easily get lost though, 21 randoms paragraphs might not have been the best way to write it. Maybe a Summary could help. | ||
|
jpt4
United States5 Posts
[0] Clarification, in case le français has not adopted that particular enrichissement: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7083 Posts
On April 12 2015 02:00 Pursuit_ wrote: This is also an opinion, one I highly disagree with. Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision? | ||
|
HewTheTitan
Canada331 Posts
On April 11 2015 09:54 Pursuit_ wrote: The idea of slowing the game down was touched upon in this article, but for anyone who is still confused I want to give my own attempt at explaining it. When you slow down the build time of units and tech, you increase the time in which you get to use the things you have. This is mostly as a result of keeping the movement speed of units the same. It allows players more time to try to make something happen with the units they have, encouraging aggression. For those of you who have played Civ5, you've probably experienced this phenomena in the different game speeds. When you play on the 'Quick' gamespeed, making units is almost detrimental because of how fast tech progressess. By the time you've made your unit and moved it 4-5 times you could already have made a better unit, and your opponent probably has. When you play on 'Marathon', however, that 4-5 moves turns into 40-50 moves. Suddenly making units (and being aggressive in general) becomes a lot more viable, because your opponent wont have time to get a new tech out and make a better unit before your unit arrives. Every unit also becomes far more important because of the slower build times. Imagine if you doubled the build time and cost of all units, building and research in SC2. It would slow the game down considerably, but it would also give you so much more time to use your units in each stage of the game. It's a lot easier to be aggressive when you have more time to make use of those units before they become obsolete. You'd essentially be doubling the 'timer' on which every aggressive push in SC2 is on. What Blizzard did in HotS is rather than slow down the production / tech speeds, they increased the movement speed of units to attempt to achieve the same affect. It didn't work, though, because human's are limited by how many actions we can make in a second. The margin of error became too small. edit: typo's, of which there were a lot. tl;dr Slowing the game down gives player more time to make things happen with the units they have. Very well said. Maybe even deserves its own [D] thread  | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
| ||
|
shin ken
Germany612 Posts
TFT and BW were not as revolutionary as the changes the OP demands from LoTV (and the had better main game to work with) Still, this is an article we should remember for SC3 or a spirital successor. | ||
|
Meff
Italy287 Posts
Paragraph 1 is logically unsound. Starting with more workers does not contract time. Skipping an initial phase does not make units go faster on the screen, nor makes them harder to control. The entire argument is based out of an unsound premise and masked in eloquence. Proposal: discuss the actual consequences of the change, such as scouting timings and the effective removal of builds that did something before the 12th worker. Paragraph 2 starts with a logical fallacy. Sometimes, the correct solution to unsatisfactory aspects of a game can be removing them altogether. Even continuing with the faulty analogy of medicine, you do treat appendicitis that way. Calling Blizzard developers butchers is not a good suggestion, it is just an insult. The paragraph then goes on to propose a possible evolution of the meta in LotV... which is interesting, as far as wild fantasy goes. Lastly, it is not necessarily true that if harassment tools have the potential of stopping economic development then the game will devolve in a worker hunting contest. Some games might turn harassment-based and some might not, much like players decide to cheese in some matches and not in others. Proposal: discuss alternative solutions for the problem of having to sit during the first two minutes of a game doing repetitive, mostly boring tasks such as worker production - or reject it as a problem altogether, and save yourself the trouble (but do not be surprised if other people consider it such). Don't worry about predicting the metagame of a game that is not released yet: you will not be able to do so. In your defense, nobody will. Paragraph 3 is based on false analogy. Time does not get contracted by expanding more often, nor manging it becomes mechanically impossible. Having to place one hatchery and two geysers every 2 minutes instead of every 4 does not hit any significant biological skill ceiling; splitting double the amount of marines or driving a car at double the speed obviously does. Proposal: if the new macro model gives you problems, talk about them directly. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote:They call this bogus approach “innovation”. lol | ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
Thank you. Let's hope it does not fall on deaf ears... there were a lot of these :D | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
Did you write the architect scene of the second MATRIX movie? Always know what crowd you are adressing! You write this to the users of this forum who may not be strong in their English, thus they dont understand what you are trying to say. You come across as a show off, which consequentially pisses people off and this post fails to deliver the message you want to get across to these people. | ||
|
Amestir
Netherlands2126 Posts
But God your writing makes you sounds like a pretentious douchebag. You sound like an english major who really really wants to impress his teacher. Your article is great, and should be read but your writing style really makes it a lot harder then it needs to be. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30545 Posts
2:"In the end, the change might prolong the “passive period,” artificially filled with an explosion of semi-automated actions. Scouting might end up weakened too, with sudden, wild tech switches becoming the norm thanks to the increased mass of ressources stored each minute" Well no, if anything the new LotV economy gives you less resources per minute than in HotS as you mine out faster, so need to invest more $ into bases for the same $/min. 3) I just don't see why LotV would contract time. (besides the obvious skip of the first minute of droning) Just because you start with more workers and the economy is different does not mean that there are more decisions/min to be made in a game of LotV compared to HotS. Different decisions, sure. But not so much more decision each minute of playtime. 5)Honestly Starcraft is way more fun too watch then football most of the time. Football matches equate to swarmhost stalemates for a high % of the game, often not building up to anything, and is only enjoyable if you really root for a team. (thats why worldcups are the best). In most Starcraft games even if no combat is happening you can still follow the players building up to something. So I don't understand you argument at all as Starcraft > Football 6) Such a bad paragraph! Deathballs exist because it is the most efficient option. Deathballs are chosen by THE PLAYER not the viewer. Deathballs became efficient because the pathing engine is more efficient so units aren't retarded. It has nothing to do with SC2 being 'made for esports'. LotV already restores more control by giving a counter option to forcefield and making collosus less viable. 7-8-9) There's no point in any of these... And the collosus is getting weakened and siege tanks are more viable in LotV so I have no idea what you want. 10) So you say excessive automisation removes control? But earlier you stated that there was a limit to the amount of actions of person can do. What good would individually charging zealots do besides adding additional low importance actions to be made (actions/min are limited remember)? 11)Well I guess I agree that Blizzards balancing/steering methods are not very great 12) Ultralisks are usually terrible so they buffed them. There is nothing wrong with that at all. They tried adding burrow charge but deemed it too good. So you suggest they should just be split up into several 'heavy zerglings' (lower supply, more agile)? That would make zerglings obsolete after hive. That seems like a way worse decision than having the ultralisk in the game. You say melee units are brainless.... meanwhile ling/bane ZvZ is one of the most intense micro battles in SC2. Ranged unit battles are often just lines of units shooting at eachother, ie Roach vs Roach or Mass collosus battles. The only thing that makes ranged battles interesting are the hardcounters you hate so much. (tanks vs clumped marines, land vs air, army compositions). So much bullshit in this paragraph. 13)They are reorganising as well as innovating. Existing units are changed, new units added.... 14) Bad examples. Recall helps remove the 'huge risk' protoss used to have when leaving their base, and Msc can be sniped. Warpprism range allows for additional harassment choices compared to pretty boring mass a-move zealot warpins. Tactical Jump gives Battlecruisers more options to do risky things. Medivac+siege tanks improves the versatility of the tank while not improving it's boring turtle potential. 15) I don't know Kev... I've seen way more small skirmishes in LotV streams while HotS is usually 7-8mins of straight macro. Remember there's a higher % of money required for maintaining the economy, therefore there will actually be less army units at any given time compared to HotS. Also more bases to be defended so smaller skirmishes are more natural as well. 18-21)Spiritual gibberish/nonsense. And then in the end, you mock units 'with buttons' as it is 'mobafication' and therefore bad. But you also keep demanding slower time. There was an RTS with way slower play speed than Starcraft. It's Warcraft 3. And the only reason that was interesting being that slow was exactly because pretty much each unit had one or more buttons and heroes with 4 buttons! This is actually where moba's came from... Buttonless units are only interesting if the damage to health ratio is high, just like in Starcraft 2. LotV has a lot to live up to and still needs quite some work, but it's already looking pretty revolutionary to me. This article is condescending and mostly just wrong. | ||
|
Maniak_
France305 Posts
On April 12 2015 02:11 Zambrah wrote: Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision? It is. And being clear and concise is *much* harder than simply rambling on endlessly and telling the listeners/readers to parse it themselves and try to find the actual points. That's just lazy writing. And when it's done knowingly, that's just bullshit (or marketing/politics. all synonyms ) | ||
|
varsovie
Canada326 Posts
Also there's some strongly fallacious and demagogic sayings and I do not feel all your points are evenly supported by logic or evidences. Sadly those extravagant sayings might be the only way to get things moving, but it still gives an aftertaste of whining to the post. Now can you write the next Protoss bullshit bible please? :D | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I read it, but jesus man pretty sure this could be summed up in 200 words. | ||
|
Yorkie
United States12612 Posts
| ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
I have said this over the years the design process should be X Creates very fun, competitive, community based game or real life sport. Then before you know it the question of "who" is the best NATURALLY arises and then the COMMUNITY turns it into a sport out of demand. A very good recent example of this is Crossfit. A workout program that came out in 2002 as a combination of multiple forms of fitness. When the founder made it, he wasnt jerking off of the idea of 200,000 people trying to compete. He just made a brilliant combination of fitness. People loved it and it was fun, competitive, and community based. So naturally a few years down the line, the question naturally came who is the best? 13 years later you have over 200,000 people competing in the open for this sport and it is only growing because it was not made FOR SPORT, but it BECAME a sport. This is exactly what happened with BW. Artificially trying to create some game into a sport is a mistake, and the problem is that now every damn video game company is trying to do that. Now any new game comes out and even in Alpha people are going "ZOMG LIEK ESPORTS????" I agree with the casual shit, that is a term that I wish never existed. Lots of caps, I know, but 5 years of being bitter about SC2 does that to people. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On April 12 2015 01:55 Zambrah wrote: Wouldn't someone who COULD sum up a picture or book in few words and do a good job be considered an excellent writer? This is an interesting question, though it was not at all the one I raised. Yes, he would be considered a good writer—in this particular exercise. However, writing and summing up are not the same task. Allow me to bounce back on this and submit you the following paradox: (1) Many people (would) say I write well. (2) Yet writing too much for nothing is the epitome of being a bad writer. So, things are straightforward. Either (1) I'm a pedantic, complacent, sadistic guru-wizard, manipulating the very mind of readers to make them believe false things; or (2) the text is what it is because of its construction and the intents behind it. People don't like to slog through reading something like this, being a strong writer means using the correct language at the correct time, at least in my opinion. On April 12 2015 02:11 Zambrah wrote: Isn't it more or less standard to write an argumentative piece with clarity and concision? But what makes you think I used the incorrect language, if not the intent you perceived—which might have been your implicit expectations? Perhaps I was actually quite clear and concise in my perspective? To people who criticize my style. — You all came here to read a political program. But all political programs have a theoretical background, and it is by far much more important than the stupid slogans you learn by heart. I tried to make you think about this theoretical background, and you blamed me as “obscure” and “unnecessarily verbose”. Well, I am deeply sorry that I Blinked in your room, put a Gauss Rifle right against your temple, and forced you to read everything in one piece—or even anything at all. Now; it is probably time for that debate to end. (1) I have been defined as verbose and complacent. How can I defend myself? By using more words. Therefore, I am wrong by construction. (2) I have been defined as manipulative. If the manipulator defends himself, it's only part of his manipulation. Therefore, I am wrong by construction. (3) We have already been through this: how many pages of Welcome to ZParcraft II were essentially people raising their fists about how I didn't say things nicely enough; or I was too long; or I sounded too “sour”; or I was too sarcastic; or I was too arrogant; or “bla bla bla,” as you put it. People always have good reasons to blame the messenger. If reality is unpleasant, kill the messenger. If reality is admittable, blame the messenger for not wording it the way Mr. Reader—well, well?—would like it to be formulated. OK, OK, OK. Yet as I wrote in the text: Reality is a boomerang. Blame and kill the messengers at your heart's content, reality remains. It's quite hilarious how some of you have no idea how crude and rude they were in their posts. I respect your freedom of reader to dislike my text, its content, its length or its style; but in the end, you won't respect my freedom of author to phrase it the way I want. You want me to stay in the cocoon; in your cocoon. You are—well, well?—a “dictatorial designer”. But sense, like Starcraft, is not a game of cubes. | ||
| ||
