|
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. |
On April 12 2015 11:13 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 10:30 StalkerFang wrote: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. 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.
I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
|
At this point, I'm very close to thinking that the SC2 community is by far the biggest thing dragging SC2 as a game and an esports down.
I've been reading these forums almost since SC2 was announced. I have read so karking many of these "design manifestos." They are remarkably similar, and most are not all that helpful--and I have to say that this is, in fact, one of the weakest examples I've seen yet.
As to the article itself, like many examples of this genre, it is long on rhetoric, long on random insults and toxicity towards the game, the community, and Blizzard, long on random opinions about units and game concepts thrown out parenthetically as though self-evident, and short on, well, justification, specificity, constructiveness, etc. No one who didn't already agree with Dwf's short forum post in the first TL strategy thread is going to be convinced by the same post with added insults and metaphors. With the bloat cut out, this post comes to a few broad, vague, one-sided platitudes (Control is good, hard-counters are bad, time contraction is bad, Blizzard is stupid, etc, etc.). This isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's effects will be dreadful.
As to these effects, I can predict them with a high degree of certainty. The above vague platitudes and phrases will be diffused through the community and repeated in forum posts ad nasaeum for the next year or so. The Starcraft community in general will be even more reinforced in their self-regarding sense of themselves as a long-suffering, genius intelligentsia somehow condescending to watch a terribad game designed by their obvious moral and intellectual inferiors, idiots who somehow still haven't figured out how to just read the REALLY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES of GOOD GAME DESIGN from BROOD WAR that THAT ONE GUY in THAT ONE FORUM POST wrote with BULLET POINTS and just DO THAT--which is apparently something that the community could easily do on their own. This will lead to the community becoming even more (!) ridiculously toxic towards Blizzard and the game they watch and play. It will also paradoxically lead to much less constructive criticism being directed toward LotV and Starcraft in general. Dozens of people will tell Blizzard to "just read dwf's forum post!" and repeat said platitudes and/or insults instead of engaging in constructive criticism of the game set before them. The aforesaid insults and non-constructivity will not make this a very helpful proposition for Blizzard, but it will have the effect of swamping out real criticism and discussion.
Likewise, the post will also anger lots of people, especially people who (1) disagree with dwf, (2) have some kind of positive feelings towards Blizzard, or (3) feel insulted by dwf's insults. These people will often react badly and non-constructively. They will be responded to non-constructively using dwf's insults and/or platitudes.
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
|
I really hope I'm wrong about this. Maybe, somehow, this post will inspire lots of great discussion about these general issues that will eventually lead to some positive, constructive ideas. Some big manifestos have eventually (after bringing on most of the negative effects spoken of above) led to some more-or-less constructive ideas. Maybe that will be true here, in the end. But in the meantime, what will be the costs?
All that being said, I'm gonna go read the TL Strategy post. Carry on.
|
On April 12 2015 12:42 Captain Peabody wrote:+ Show Spoiler +At this point, I'm very close to thinking that the SC2 community is by far the biggest thing dragging SC2 as a game and an esports down.
I've been reading these forums almost since SC2 was announced. I have read so karking many of these "design manifestos." They are remarkably similar, and most are not all that helpful--and I have to say that this is, in fact, one of the weakest examples I've seen yet.
As to the article itself, like many examples of this genre, it is long on rhetoric, long on random insults and toxicity towards the game, the community, and Blizzard, long on random opinions about units and game concepts thrown out parenthetically as though self-evident, and short on, well, justification, specificity, constructiveness, etc. No one who didn't already agree with Dwf's short forum post in the first TL strategy thread is going to be convinced by the same post with added insults and metaphors. With the bloat cut out, this post comes to a few broad, vague, one-sided platitudes (Control is good, hard-counters are bad, time contraction is bad, Blizzard is stupid, etc, etc.). This isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's effects will be dreadful.
As to these effects, I can predict them with a high degree of certainty. The above vague platitudes and phrases will be diffused through the community and repeated in forum posts ad nasaeum for the next year or so. The Starcraft community in general will be even more reinforced in their self-regarding sense of themselves as a long-suffering, genius intelligentsia somehow condescending to watch a terribad game designed by their obvious moral and intellectual inferiors, idiots who somehow still haven't figured out how to just read the REALLY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES of GOOD GAME DESIGN from BROOD WAR that THAT ONE GUY in THAT ONE FORUM POST wrote with BULLET POINTS and just DO THAT--which is apparently something that the community could easily do on their own. This will lead to the community becoming even more (!) ridiculously toxic towards Blizzard and the game they watch and play. It will also paradoxically lead to much less constructive criticism being directed toward LotV and Starcraft in general. Dozens of people will tell Blizzard to "just read dwf's forum post!" and repeat said platitudes and/or insults instead of engaging in constructive criticism of the game set before them. The aforesaid insults and non-constructivity will not make this a very helpful proposition for Blizzard, but it will have the effect of swamping out real criticism and discussion.
Likewise, the post will also anger lots of people, especially people who (1) disagree with dwf, (2) have some kind of positive feelings towards Blizzard, or (3) feel insulted by dwf's insults. These people will often react badly and non-constructively. They will be responded to non-constructively using dwf's insults and/or platitudes.
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
However, this is exactly NOT a vague balance whine. This whole post was about one particular point. Contraction of time removes control from the player.
Articles like this are necessary in order to make some sort of progress. Discussions need to be had. Things need to be tried out. Communication needs to occur between all involved parties.
There is one simple question that hangs in the air. 'Can Starcraft 2 be made better?' I love Starcraft. I have consumed countless hours of tournaments, and played many more hours of ladder. There are some things that could be tried out as being potentially more fun because, as thedwf observes, the changes that blizzard continually put out often detract from the fun to be had. The more fun the game is, the longer we'll be playing it. The more people can come to enjoy it.
Some people say that BW 2.0 is not the way to go, but we need to have discussions, we need to TRY THINGS OUT. Because what blizzard is doing now is not working, but we can help.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On April 12 2015 13:08 Thaniri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 12:42 Captain Peabody wrote:+ Show Spoiler +At this point, I'm very close to thinking that the SC2 community is by far the biggest thing dragging SC2 as a game and an esports down.
I've been reading these forums almost since SC2 was announced. I have read so karking many of these "design manifestos." They are remarkably similar, and most are not all that helpful--and I have to say that this is, in fact, one of the weakest examples I've seen yet.
As to the article itself, like many examples of this genre, it is long on rhetoric, long on random insults and toxicity towards the game, the community, and Blizzard, long on random opinions about units and game concepts thrown out parenthetically as though self-evident, and short on, well, justification, specificity, constructiveness, etc. No one who didn't already agree with Dwf's short forum post in the first TL strategy thread is going to be convinced by the same post with added insults and metaphors. With the bloat cut out, this post comes to a few broad, vague, one-sided platitudes (Control is good, hard-counters are bad, time contraction is bad, Blizzard is stupid, etc, etc.). This isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's effects will be dreadful.
As to these effects, I can predict them with a high degree of certainty. The above vague platitudes and phrases will be diffused through the community and repeated in forum posts ad nasaeum for the next year or so. The Starcraft community in general will be even more reinforced in their self-regarding sense of themselves as a long-suffering, genius intelligentsia somehow condescending to watch a terribad game designed by their obvious moral and intellectual inferiors, idiots who somehow still haven't figured out how to just read the REALLY OBVIOUS and SIMPLE PRINCIPLES of GOOD GAME DESIGN from BROOD WAR that THAT ONE GUY in THAT ONE FORUM POST wrote with BULLET POINTS and just DO THAT--which is apparently something that the community could easily do on their own. This will lead to the community becoming even more (!) ridiculously toxic towards Blizzard and the game they watch and play. It will also paradoxically lead to much less constructive criticism being directed toward LotV and Starcraft in general. Dozens of people will tell Blizzard to "just read dwf's forum post!" and repeat said platitudes and/or insults instead of engaging in constructive criticism of the game set before them. The aforesaid insults and non-constructivity will not make this a very helpful proposition for Blizzard, but it will have the effect of swamping out real criticism and discussion.
Likewise, the post will also anger lots of people, especially people who (1) disagree with dwf, (2) have some kind of positive feelings towards Blizzard, or (3) feel insulted by dwf's insults. These people will often react badly and non-constructively. They will be responded to non-constructively using dwf's insults and/or platitudes.
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me. However, this is exactly NOT a vague balance whine. This whole post was about one particular point. Contraction of time removes control from the player. Articles like this are necessary in order to make some sort of progress. Discussions need to be had. Things need to be tried out. Communication needs to occur between all involved parties. There is one simple question that hangs in the air. 'Can Starcraft 2 be made better?' I love Starcraft. I have consumed countless hours of tournaments, and played many more hours of ladder. There are some things that could be tried out as being potentially more fun because, as thedwf observes, the changes that blizzard continually put out often detract from the fun to be had. The more fun the game is, the longer we'll be playing it. The more people can come to enjoy it. Some people say that BW 2.0 is not the way to go, but we need to have discussions, we need to TRY THINGS OUT. Because what blizzard is doing now is not working, but we can help.
Its less about BW 2.0 and more like, take lessons from BW that we can apply to some shortfalls we see in HotS.
|
You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite
"Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words
"Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 12 2015 11:54 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 11:13 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 10:30 StalkerFang wrote: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. 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. I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal.
No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard.
I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it.
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote:
You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite
"Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words
"Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people.
Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm.
That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
|
On April 12 2015 13:49 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 11:54 StalkerFang wrote:On April 12 2015 11:13 SC2John wrote:On April 12 2015 10:30 StalkerFang wrote: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. 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. I appreciate that which is why I'm not trying to be aggressive like a lot of other people in this thread. On the other hand, what you said is basically my entire point. His post is the equivalent of a poet trying to get his flowery paper on quantum mechanics taken seriously by a physics journal. No, it doesn't; that's not what I said! You hear what you want to hear. I specifically said that it's NOT designed to be taken seriously by Blizzard, but to be regarded as a piece of persuasion to get people to be critical of Blizzard. Show nested quote +I originally responded to somebody asking about why the discussion in this thread isn't about the content of the OP. Well the answer is exactly what you just pointed out, the OP wasn't written in a way which promotes analytical discussion. I think I agree with most of his points, but they're made in such a long-winded and roundabout way that I honestly can't tell. It should come as a surprise to nobody that this thread doesn't have much discussion of the game in it. No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it. Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 13:17 kelbs wrote:
You put your ideas and your writing in the public domain. Many people commenting, including myself, have not. Good on you for contributing to the LOTV discussion. I agree with many of your points (I think...)
I also happen to have a book on writing style called The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. In the chapter titled "An approach to style" the Authors list several general guidelines to improve writing style. Here are several I felt were particularly applicable here:
3. Work from a design
6. Do not overwrite
"Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess."
14. Avoid fancy words
"Avoid the elaborate, the pretentious, the coy, and the cute. Do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
16. Be clear
You mentioned that some people would label you a good writer. I think it's clear where Strunk and White would stand. Thank you for your thoughts and I hope next time you share them with us, they are accessible to more people. Again, this is not an article designed to be a scholarly documentation of Blizzard's progress in SC2. It is a rhetorical speech written with the hopes of inspiring discussion and criticism of Blizzard's approach to SC2. Strunk and White have no authority in this realm. That said, TheDwf is an incredible writer. This piece is well held together despite the fact that it is essentially a ramble in 20 something unlabeled parts.
The Elements of Style was brought up because the OP seriously needs an editor. "Time Compression" appears in a few places but is hardly a consistent theme. I could write just as many words as TheDwf on why his intended messages fail to support themselves, but this isn't a scientific piece is it? If this is mere rhetoric, then let us criticise the rhetoric. I will not "rally" behind someone who refuses to speak clearly and concisely about the issues at hand; I will not rally behind someone who names their opinion piece on video game design "RAZZIA OF THE BLIZZSTERS", which when translated to simple english seems to be some sort of raid by a mysterious group who have the misfortune to be named "The Blizzsters", a name both uncomfortable to pronounce and disruptive to read.
If I am told to judge it as rhetoric, it is extremely poor rhetoric. It burdens the reader with words that require a thesaurus every other paragraph, and then it's up to the reader to figure out the intended meaning when we get a phrase like "not punctually, but globally". There is no alternate meaning of punctual that allows it to describe anything other than "on time, when expected." Now I start asking myself "You know, of all the stages of a Starcraft 2 game, I found the opening slowest and least interesting." And so I am already distracted from the point that was being made. Any game design decision cannot be said to be punctual when it has yet to be committed outside of Beta servers. Now I am further from the point that was being made; this is the trap an author of rhetorical writing has set for his or herself in choosing to use words rarely seen outside of essay assignments with a minimum page count.
I agree that Blizzard's initial approach to altering the overall economic shape of Starcraft 2 requires improvement; it only achieves the bare skeleton of "Rewarding Expanding". However, all this nonsense about Watchability and the Tyranny of the Spectator is rhetoric alone, as TheDwf can only speculate why certain design decisions were made. "Time Compression" is rapidly becoming some sort of catchphrase, as if suddenly Blizzard has found a hole in space time and sewn it shut to make their game move faster than possible. We need to keep in mind that Legacy of the Void Economy Revision #1 is still a good start, as a drastic change in the SC2 economy would completely change the strategy and map design of the game. However, we should word our opposition to its side effects as "Punishing Non-expansion", as these are more exact words that reflect on the failings of Blizzard's stated goal.
However, this is a discussion based on rhetoric alone, correct? I have seen nothing exceptional or novel in this rhetoric aside from its superfluous length; even in high school I would blush in embarrassment were I to write a piece such as this. Its language rebuffs proper discussion and provides no food for thought save for the paranoid delusionists who glance nervously at their pitchforks and torches every time Blizzard pushes out a test map that does not completely revise the game's design. Five years may be a long time to wait, but after five years Blizzard suddenly shows willingness to change the economic model of SC2. Let them innovate. But more importantly, tell them precisely and succinctly what is lacking.
Or if writing speeches to rally English-language-focused Etymologists who happen to deeply care about the design of Starcraft 2 is more your forte, by all means write away. Just don't be surprised if others find it distasteful when you turn your forte up to fortississimo.
|
This is quite the worthy read, however I sadly only have time to skim and smirk (a tactic I use for the replies as well). I shall however make it a point to return and give this work the time it deserves.
I fear that I am in the minority, though I should hope not, as I find TheDwf's writing quite enjoyable as well as very well thought out. I am not sure I agree with all points, which is clearly beside them, but there is a clear amount of thought put into these ideas.
I enjoyed read...err perusing the ensuing chaos of replies.
+ Show Spoiler +On April 11 2015 23:13 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 23:01 nkr wrote:So much word vomit made it hard to get much out of it. The important parts get lost  I like your metaphor. Vomitting is what happens when you can't digest something. You, as a reader, felt nauseous in front of what you perceive as logorrhea. But is it because the food was bad, or because you ate too fast? Wasn't your indigestion too a time razzia? Who forced you to read everything all in one piece? I certainly didn't. Maybe the food was poisoned, maybe you overestimated the strength of your stomach. Contraction of time works in mysterious ways! You might be my internet hero...
Also, man I am seriously impressed with your ability to write in English, it being your second(?) language. My hat is off to you, that is seriously impressive (also I really should find out where my hat went).
|
|
|
On April 12 2015 13:49 SC2John wrote:
No, it doesn't have discussion of the game because the article isn't about the game. It's about being aware of what Blizzard has done and what they are doing and paying attention to what they will do next. It's about trying to be critical of Blizzard; not flaming or bashing them blindly, but analytically processing the things they do and reacting correctly to it.
Well doesn't look like we're getting anywhere with this. Can I just ask you though: If you think the article isn't about the game, why are you letting it stay in the 'legacy of the void' subforum? Surely the content here should be directly related to the beta? It's an opinion piece, not a detailed analytical look at legacy of the void and the state of the game, shouldn't it go in a blog post or something? I think that's the key issue here.
|
People, dear teamliquid's fellows: you made me cry and laugh at the same time.
TheDwf: you're brilliant.
Let's sum it up, it'so beautifull
Some dude show up with a long text, both difficult and rewarding to read, adressing the issue of time-contraction in sc2: it explains how the goal to make an "action-packed" game, with shiny dots on the screen right from the start and all the way to the end ultimately weakens the interactions between players and therefore limits the practical skill-ceiling of the game.
Other dudes freak out, because the wall of text has neither auto-mining, nor smartcasting, and "could be sumed up in 200 words".
gg no re
@TheDwf: you made my day, and most certainly the next.
|
On April 12 2015 12:42 Captain Peabody wrote:
The overall result will be the effective devolution of the Starcraft community's discourse, the swamping out of constructive criticism, and an increase in every type of toxicity, towards the game, Blizzard, and other community members. This will continue to drive new players and watchers away from Starcraft, as well as further alienating veterans and fans like me.
I don't think toxicity has any relevance here but I think "the swamping out of constructive criticism" is a completely valid concern. The points of the piece may be true but it's not nearly direct enough to either make an impact or generate meaningful discussion for the future of LOTV.
On April 12 2015 13:08 Thaniri wrote:
However, this is exactly NOT a vague balance whine. This whole post was about one particular point. Contraction of time removes control from the player.
Articles like this are necessary in order to make some sort of progress. Discussions need to be had. Things need to be tried out. Communication needs to occur between all involved parties.
The "contraction of time and how it removes control from the player" would be a great topic of discussion in the college course Starcraft 101. The issue is, what is the direct implementation to fix this? What is step 1 here that we could communicate to blizzard? Even if we all agree with the OP's argument, how can we implement something to fix this? If the fix is an economy change, then why not spend all these words examining a new economy rather than thousands of words arguing against the contraction of time?
I absolutely agree that discussion needs to be had but the discussion generated by this article is pretty much unrelated to the future of LOTV. I believe the backlash from several posters is the result of this confusion. As Captain Peabody mentioned there seems to be "swamping out of constructive criticism" resulting from the post. I don't think that was the intention of the article but that is what is happening.
|
On April 12 2015 18:33 Karel wrote:
People, dear teamliquid's fellows: you made me cry and laugh at the same time.
TheDwf: you're brilliant.
Let's sum it up, it'so beautifull
Some dude show up with a long text, both difficult and rewarding to read, adressing the issue of time-contraction in sc2: it explains how the goal to make an "action-packed" game, with shiny dots on the screen right from the start and all the way to the end ultimately weakens the interactions between players and therefore the practical skill-ceiling of the game.
Other dudes freak out, because the wall of text has neither auto-mining, nor smartcasting, and "could be sum up in 200 words".
gg no re
@TheDwf: you made my day, and most certainly the next.
and you have made my day =D
I think in a week or two when people have had a chance to really digest this we'll see some more discussion
|
On April 12 2015 18:33 Karel wrote:
People, dear teamliquid's fellows: you made me cry and laugh at the same time.
TheDwf: you're brilliant.
Let's sum it up, it'so beautifull
Some dude show up with a long text, both difficult and rewarding to read, adressing the issue of time-contraction in sc2: it explains how the goal to make an "action-packed" game, with shiny dots on the screen right from the start and all the way to the end ultimately weakens the interactions between players and therefore the practical skill-ceiling of the game.
Other dudes freak out, because the wall of text has neither auto-mining, nor smartcasting, and "could be sum up in 200 words".
gg no re
@TheDwf: you made my day, and most certainly the next.
Shhh.. don't ruin the fun 
|
On April 12 2015 18:48 knyttym wrote:
The "contraction of time and how it removes control from the player" would be a great topic of discussion in the college course Starcraft 101. The issue is, what is the direct implementation to fix this? What is step 1 here that we could communicate to blizzard? Even if we all agree with the OP's argument, how can we implement something to fix this? If the fix is an economy change, then why not spend all these words examining a new economy rather than thousands of words arguing against the contraction of time?
I absolutely agree that discussion needs to be had but the discussion generated by this article is pretty much unrelated to the future of LOTV. I believe the backlash from several posters is the result of this confusion. As Captain Peabody mentioned there seems to be "swamping out of constructive criticism" resulting from the post. I don't think that was the intention of the article but that is what is happening.
The issue is much broader than "fix the economy: done!", which is why this article in its whole length makes sense. Blizzard is trying to speed the game up on many fronts or has already done so by initial design, patches or WoL-->HotS expansion. And the community is largely applauding because they only see the new toys, they only read the new phrases of "faster game" and "more excitement" but miss the strategical implementations. That's where Dwf says
If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force.
The fix is to change the game on many levels and undo previous changes that let to those situations.
The economy model in which you are encouraged to invest everything early into acquiring expansions and building tech and production of little units is a core of the problem. But also many other aspects need to be questioned. Like macro mechanics and worker build time/larva spawn time, reactors and warpgates, costs for tech buildings.
Unit interactions need to be improved instead of throwing random spells onto existing units and introducing more units that we don't even know what to use them for or if we know it, it is a simple swap of the new unit with an old one.
Like, blizzard complains about the early game downtime, yet, instead of attacking the problem directly with its strategical roots in explosive production after the first inject keeping the opponent at home, walling and forcefielding instead of unit build up or Nexus Canon instead of real unit defense, they just try to start the game at a point in which the armies are big enough to not care about those tools. Or make units that can circumvent them.
Like: PvT boring in WoL? --> Introduce very cheap tools that can win the game early (oracle, widow mine, medivac boosters) --> introduce defensive tools that can stop them of a tiny investment. Result:
Players still play the same deathball style as before. Even less macro pressure play because of the enhanced defensive tools. Only aggression left is the hyperstrong tools introduced to do damage where no damage can be done otherwise.
The solution to those deathballs is not to introduce tools and their counters, the solution is to slow down production so that every unit matters. So that your banshee can poke the main, and then poke the natural and dance with the stalkers, not that the mothership core goes "nope" and when you come back the Protoss has 4 warpgates and a robo and an observer and 5stalkers ready to intercept your unit.
Ever been annoyed by killing 15drones and then the zerg just remakes them? Yes, too much production on both sides.
15 drones should not be made at 2 bases (not even start about 3bases) in less than one minute. Neither should sacrificing your whole army - 8 hellions, 800minerals investment early in the game - result in just remaking them with 30seconds build time two at a time. The popping roaches now should have a huge timing window to punish the Terran and the Zerg should seriously struggle to not just fall out of the game. But neither is the case. Until the roaches have moved over the map there are 4bunkers finished and the Terran production has started kicking in, so the zerg just doesn't build the roaches in the first place (unless in a very allinish move). Instead he remakes the drones and the game just goes on with more production, bases and tech already finished.
The game is heavily balanced and designed around either being allin, or not having any units at all. The solution isn't simple and probably will not ever be examined by blizzard for obvious reasons of workload and their own designgoals, but going the opposite direction of more bases, more production, more powerful units to circumvent defenses early is plainly wrong.
|
|
|
On April 12 2015 21:12 Barrin wrote:
Started reading again.. I owe you an apology. Sorry. This is gonna be great.
See, it's all about the mentality (;
|
Like, blizzard complains about the early game downtime, yet, instead of attacking the problem directly with its strategical roots in explosive production after the first inject keeping the opponent at home, walling and forcefielding instead of unit build up or Nexus Canon instead of real unit defense, they just try to start the game at a point in which the armies are big enough to not care about those tools. Or make units that can circumvent them.
Imagine if MOBA's had a phase where you had to kill neutral monsters for 15 minutes before you could actually start attacking the enemy. Wouldn't the easy solution here be to cut straight to the interesting parts of the game?
Blizzard does exactly that with 12-mining workers. Trying to create early game action through unit design only is very challenging. So actually I think your looking at this the wrong way. The core problem is that the game starts too late (and still does), and making tweaks to units should only be considered band-aid fixes. In the future RTS games will most likely allow you to go straight to the fun parts as we see in MOBA's.
Ever been annoyed by killing 15drones and then the zerg just remakes them? Yes, too much production on both sides.
15 drones should not be made at 2 bases (not even start about 3bases) in less than one minute. Neither should sacrificing your whole army - 8 hellions, 800minerals investment early in the game - result in just remaking them with 30seconds build time two at a time. T
If the cost of losing units become too hard, players will build their strategies around trying to avoid this from happening in the first place. This means it will become harder for the enemy to harass drones and the terran player is less likely to be aggressive with Hellions since he cannot afford to lose them.
In fact, all your doing here is increasing the risk/reward of harassing which is exactly what Sc2 doesn't need as it makes the gameplay a lot more volatile and less likely to be back and fourth.
But neither is the case. Until the roaches have moved over the map there are 4bunkers finished and the Terran production has started kicking in, so the zerg just doesn't build the roaches in the first place (unless in a very allinish move). Instead he remakes the drones and the game just goes on with more production, bases and tech already finished.
If zerg doesn't make the Roaches in the first place, the terran could have continued with Hellion production and continued to kill drones. If you want more light Roach aggression to be viable, you should look at stronger burrow, nydus or overlord play, which really has nothng to do with time contraction, but rather has something to do with (a) harassment tools and (b) how thinly the terran player is spread out.
But also many other aspects need to be questioned. Like macro mechanics and worker build time/larva spawn time, reactors and warpgates, costs for tech buildings.
If everything builds X% faster, the effect is unchanged. However, the issue comes from when you create huge economic discrepancies that makes it impossible for one race to move out, and instead gives them a really strong all-in tool (warpgates). But once again, this is a specific issue and not related to time contraction as a general concept.
|
Regardless of the rhetorics, there are a lot of assertions in this, some not backed up, some straight up false. Why should we believe that because the game starts 1 minute later, it logically follows that everyone will rush for 3-base and not attack? How does that work? The number of 6 workers is no less arbitrary than the number of 12 workers. So why is it that one forces mistakes out of players and removes strategy because it contracts time, when the other didn't?
I have to agree with Captain Peabody to an extent here. A large part of the response mechanic appears to be "a long post shitting on Blizzard? LET ME VOICE AGREEMENT". This feels like preaching to converts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
