EPTRazzia of the Blizzsters - Page 6
| 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. | ||
|
dehydrogenaza
Poland122 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Siege Tanks shouldn't fly. Mutas should die when they are being shot. Half of the Protoss units shouldn't have made it in the game. Injects and the whole production/macro process should have been nerfed in the WoL beta to prevent the balancing around explosive sudden production and snowball effects that swallow "cute" play. Units that don't work - or wouldn't be transitionable in reasonable time with such changes of pace - should have been redesigned. Hindsight, lots of hindsight indeed. I don't blame blizzard for the mistakes they made in the first 1-2years of the game. Even if there was Broodwar and Warcraft experience, SC2 is a game on its own. But I blame blizzard for the following years of repeating their mistakes and their wild improvisations. HotS could and should have fixed the mistakes. Instead it cemented the games fundamental problems, and it wasn't balance. That was the only aspect HotS kind of fixed with varying success. I'm kind of sad about myself, because I know that for years I was avid defender with great hope that blizzard had a plan. Or at least would just stand to their words*. It feels like their horrible presentation of LotV at Blizzcon has blown the rest of it away. Though blizzard are just a part of the problem. The community is just as much to blame. Stupid anti-patching attitudes, hype over horrible half-assed changes such as the LotV economy or stupid features like fast moving siege units all across the board (new Swarm Host, tankivacs, Cyclones, Ravagers, new Tempest). RTS fundamentals are being thrown out of the window and the "fans" are rejoicing. Then, two weeks after release they'll be back playing DotA or LoL or that other HotS game, because why would you play an RTS game that wants to be a MOBA if you could just play a MOBA instead? | ||
|
Nezgar
Germany535 Posts
On April 12 2015 05:59 TheDwf wrote: 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. 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: 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. Holy shit, you ARE a pretentious douche! Your arrogant wording and flashy expression don't make me think about the theoretical background, all it does is make me sigh and facepalm because you try to obfuscate your poor argument behind a wall of words. Your post is neither well written nor well argumented although you really want to appear that way. Cut the crap and state your points and reasoning clear and precise. It's actually that simple. Wow, I cannot even start to argue with you as almost everything you wrote in return to the critique is just stupid bullshit. Anyway, I'm done with you. Talk to a mirror or a bunch of airheads, makes no difference for me and probably neither for you. | ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
| ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
This discussion should not be about who does or does not get along with who, but rather about the whole idea of contraction of time reducing control in starcraft. It's also not a discussion about the efficacy of dwf's writing style. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
| ||
|
BurningRanger
Germany303 Posts
Although I haven't seen too much of LotV yet, the high starting worker count somehow bothered me as well, but I wasn't sure why. Imho the logic in this huge post is pretty much undeniable. On a sidenote: I'm one of those "casuals"... and I don't want to be spoon fed with everything. I want to find my own ways of playing the game, instead of being forced to play it a specific way. I'm also more of a strategist, but lack mechanical skill. I never understood why an RTS would need to be a button slamming contest. SC2 more and more turns into a Real-Time-throw-units-at-each-other game with less and less actual Strategy involved. | ||
|
Yorkie
United States12612 Posts
| ||
|
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7524 Posts
 | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
| ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
The health of SC2 as a spectator esport depends critically on how fun it is to play. Swarm hosts are not fun unless your name is Snute. I think though that the biggest problem economy. Currently, you spend the entire game with 3 or fewer mining bases. If changes are made to make 4 bases more efficient than 3 bases, harass units can be toned down, and the game can be much more dynamic. As bad as 4 gate PvP was, late WOL PvT was more frustrating IMO. It was a 15-minute 3-base race to max with one big fight to determine the game. Spread both sides out into more bases and take away the insanity of oracles and boosted medivacs, and there is so much more potential. | ||
|
Kranyum
77 Posts
Also, another flaw is that you are describing the problems without proposing solutions. I believe the Blizzard designers understand where you are coming from and tried to not fall into the pitfalls you are describing. However, designing such a complex game is pretty hard. And a solution is rarely obvious. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28522 Posts
| ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys? When the content is hidden behind a veil of pseudo-intellectual nonsense, it's hard to discuss. | ||
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
On April 12 2015 10:04 Penev wrote: Complaining about writing style sure is a lot more interesting than discussing content; Isn't it guys? It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case. For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from. This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this. So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
However, the bogus/innovation thing also made me lol so it's kind of a mixed bag | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On April 12 2015 10:30 StalkerFang wrote: It would be a lot easier to discuss the content if it wasn't so needlessly obscured by his writing style. The thing he seems to not understand about language is that it's purpose is to convey information. In some contexts flowery writing does help to convey information, but certainly not in this case. For example, the treatise on the economy of SC2 by the strat team is an example of perfect writing in this context. It makes its points clearly, backs them up with easily accessible evidence and is concise while still containing all the information it needs. It's something I can definitely imagine the Blizzard balance team reading and getting useful ideas from. This article is the equivalent of a popular science show. It might be effective in winning over the hearts of people who were on the fence about certain balance issues, but nobody should be under any illusion that it's a worthwhile contribution to actual balance discussion. The Blizzard balance team would get basically nothing out of this. So that's why this thread is mostly about the writing style. This is simply the way TheDwf writes. The economy article is strictly a scientific paper written by a student who writes scientific papers. It was written very specifically so that Blizzard would take a look at it and consider other options for fixing the economy. TheDwf's strong suit is his rhetorical power, which is why he defaults to it in writing; anyone who heard this as speech in real life would most certainly rally to it. It was not written to notify Blizzard of some impending doom, or somehow convince them that they have messed up the direction of the game. It's designed for the people who play and watch the game. We all want to see more choices and variety in SC2, and I honestly agree that Blizzard hasn't met these concerns in the correct fashion. If you think otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that this post is irrelevant in the balance discussion; it's all about the interactions between Blizzard and the community, and we should honestly all be working together to make this a better game, even if that means we need to be critical of Blizzard's approach from time to time. Which, BTW, is the point of this piece, for anyone who feels the arguments are "obfuscated". (I swear to god, I will headdesk the next person who tries to justify that the article is a "discombobulation of perspicacities" with the word "obfuscate" and other large words they found in the thesarus). | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13404 Posts
 Also: yes. DWF like rhetorical writing style. Just accept it and try to understand the core arguments and discuss those. Ignore the "fanciful" writing style for which you need a thesaurus to apprehend the concepts in the terminology as strictly as you would Foucault. | ||
| ||
