|
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 11:54 StalkerFang wrote:
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.
The problem is that he makes so many great points that it's hard to concentrate on one.
btw: people analyze his rhetoric way too much. is this a forum about writing or about starcraft?
|
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.
An analytical piece would be something like this:
-Based on XXX number of games ,55% of the time Y occured, 20% Z occured and 35% occured which is an increase compared to previously. I believe this can be attributed 4 factors with the most recent factor being introduced by LOTV as seen in...."
In analysis you try to create an overview over all of the factors that impact the decisions in the game. I think DWF in many ways is closer to what I would consider an essay.
|
On April 12 2015 22:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
We have a very different definition of analysis you and I. This is an philosphiclaly essay that targets the emotions of the audience, especially those who are affected by confirmation bias. An analytical piece would be something like this: -Based on XXX number of games ,55% of the time Y occured, 20% Z occured and 35% occured which is an increase compared to previously. I believe this can be attributed 4 factors with the most recent factor being introduced by LOTV as seen in...." In analysis you try to create an overview over all of the factors that impact the decisions in the game. I don't see how DWF even was close here.
So without figures and percentages you can't do analysis?
|
On April 12 2015 22:32 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 22:31 Hider wrote: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.
We have a very different definition of analysis you and I. This is an philosphiclaly essay that targets the emotions of the audience, especially those who are affected by confirmation bias. An analytical piece would be something like this: -Based on XXX number of games ,55% of the time Y occured, 20% Z occured and 35% occured which is an increase compared to previously. I believe this can be attributed 4 factors with the most recent factor being introduced by LOTV as seen in...." In analysis you try to create an overview over all of the factors that impact the decisions in the game. I don't see how DWF even was close here. So without figures and percentages you can't do analysis?
No read this
would be something like this:
Something like this = Example (if you do have a lot of great data as TL had in their "treatise" it definitely does help with the quality of the analysis though - but its not a neccesity).
EDIT: Just checked the actual definition of an analysis:
this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of determining its essential features and their relations:
|
Hider, you're directly detracting from this discussion by focusing on the rhetoric and not the substance of the article. It doesn't matter what your definition of `analysis' is, nor does it matter whether some other guy used the word correctly when discussing the article. Instead, what matters is the substance of the claims, i.e., what we can learn about the state of the game with the changes proposed by Blizzard from the large number of historic evidence used to illustrate the claims made. It's not that reducing time necessarily reduces strategy, but we're not operating in a vacuum, and a compelling case can be made by looking at our experience with WoL and HotS for this particular change leading to a reduction in how much strategic depth we can expect from LotV.
+ Show Spoiler +
P.S. An analysis isn't a comprehensive overview of empirical data. The core of the term comes from the idea that we are excluding empirics, and merely explicate information that is already available through making distinctions. An analysis epistemologically always provides less information that the source, but that doesn't detract from its usefulness as making distinctions does allow us to understand the matter better, allowing us to make new connections between different types of empirical data in the long run.
For example, a four-legged chair can be analyzed in the sense that we can say that it includes four legs. This information is entailed by its very meaning. But this analysis can be quite useful in a situation where someone is looking for four equally weighted sticks. We can then proceed to see if the chair has legs which have the same design, and granted that, we can investigate whether we can detach all four legs from the chair.
|
Hider, you're directly detracting from this discussion by focusing on the rhetoric and not the substance of the article
This is funny, because if you go some pages back I was actually one of the first that attempted to find the actual substance of the article and discuss its flaws. On the other hand, most other commntators were more like "YEH Blizzard sucks, brilliant article".
What is it if you want me to discuss actually? Are anyone having a discussion of the "substance" that I am redirecting the discussion away from?
|
On April 12 2015 21:58 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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. Whats your thought on this post then? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/465001-near-impossible-reduce-skill-in-competitive-gamesAbove link felt like a less extreme version of what DWF argues with less irrelevant analogies and more relevant examples. But perhaps because the examples were so direct (rather than vague) the flaws in the argumentation were apparent to anyone.
It takes 3 seconds to anyone with the slightest ounce of bona fides to realize that the thesis defended in Spaghettification is the exact, extreme opposite of what your link is saying. Literally the unadulterated antithesis.
Good luck with your slandering campaign, and by all means stay true to your ID and keep dodging hot bullets like this.
|
On April 12 2015 21:58 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
The easiest solution is to remove/reduce early game. 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.
The twelve worker start is one of the best cases that shows how blizzard hasn't understood anything. The 12worker start accelerates the game's economy by 1 minute real time. But it doesn't even lead to "more action" early. Many units that create action - stalkers, hellions, reapers - are not accelerated by this because the crux to getting them out is the build time of the production and tech buildings.
I'm not even really opposed to the change, because I believe that it is tomeito-tomato whether you start with 6 or 12 workers, the important part is how you design the timings from each of those starts. But yeah, the whole problem identification - 60 fucking seconds of downtime in the game, when we are talking about 10min breaks between games and uncertain set up times until the game even begins - is bullshit to begin with. The whole argumentation for the change is pretty bad, the more I think about it.
Show nested quote +
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:
This is the problem with DWFs article. He speaks so vaguely so everyone who is critical of Blizzard can combine what he says with their own interpretations of what Blizzard does wrong. If you can apply Widow Mines into a discussion of time contraction, then you can apply everything, and what on earth is the point of the article then? It doesn't inform us in anyway. It doesn't provide any interesting claims with well-supported arguments.
Oracles and boostervacs were just examples. I could give more and already said that the problem is manigfold. I just made it to showcase how blizzard tries to overcome "boring" gameplay with the introduction of specific tools, rather than dealing with the roots of the boring gameplay itself.
That's also what I think is the core point of the article. It's not "just regenerating mutalisks" or "just siege tanks that can be picked up" or "just the LotV economy". It's all of it combined that alienates the game from it's roots. It's the fact that instead of making tank/marine playable, they introduced the widow mine as just a stronger tool and they seem to be doing similar things now with the cyclone for mech and the ravager for roach/hydra.
It's that their whole process of problem solving is: let's give them something even better, to deal with what we have made better in the last patch/expansion.
Show nested quote +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.
This is plainly not true. It is not about increasing risk and reward as that is a question of power of the strategies against each other. As I said, both sides have too much production in that scenario. It's about downscaling both sides, so that there aren't 8hellions and 3CCs to begin with and there aren't 3bases with 30larva per minute to begin with. It's about giving the 4hellions or the 5 roaches more time before "the next wave of production" makes these unit numbers insignificant.
It is about buffing unit actions - movements and attacks - in comparison to macro actions - income and production to put a greater significance on what a player does with his units, rather than whether he hits his injects perfectly.
Show nested quote +
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 killed them off. If you do 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.
To put it upfront, again, the whole thing was an example. You are right that what you say are solutions, but they are solutions because my roaches don't have the time to do anything to begin with.
Say I do a small burrow roach push. I attack the bunker, my opponent pulls SCVs, I kill 2-3 few of them, burrow my roaches one-by-one and heal up. With fast development - the situation right now - my roaches will heal up but you have already so many units by the time they have healed up, that doing more with so few roaches is impossible.
With slower development, I can unburrow and repeat the same thing from before. The unit action to macro action ratio has changed. What before was an allinish investment with a tiny timing window to do anything has now become a long lasting harassment tools. Contraction of time.
Show nested quote +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.
But not everything is faster. Only the macro is faster. If you slow down all the macro, your first two hellions can be harassing at the other side of the map before the next two are out. If you don't slow down the macro, you might as well wait for the next two hellions because the ratio of production to movement is much more in the favor of production.
|
But not everything is faster. Only the macro is faster. If you slow down all the macro, your first two hellions can be harassing at the other side of the map before the next two are out. If you don't slow down the macro, you might as well wait for the next two hellions because the ratio of production to movement is much more in the favor of production.
I still fail to see the implications a bit, but from a general perspective, I don't disagree that movement speed and production should be balanced together. Anyway, you started out by saying that DWF was correct (or somewhat like that), but did DWF specifically come to the conclusion that macro speed is too fast relative to movement speed?
It's about giving the 4hellions or the 5 roaches more time before "the next wave of production" makes these unit numbers insignificant.
So let me be clear: If you buffed the movement speed of Roaches and maintained production, (and balanced it in different ways), the intended gameplay would still be similar?
The twelve worker start is one of the best cases that shows how blizzard hasn't understood anything. The 12worker start accelerates the game's economy by 1 minute real time. But it doesn't even lead to "more action" early. Many units that create action - stalkers, hellions, reapers - are not accelerated by this because the crux to getting them out is the build time of the production and tech buildings.
They come out 1 minute faster! I don't think anyone imagined everything to be solved with this change.
when we are talking about 10min breaks between games and uncertain set up times until the game even begins - is bullshit to begin with. The whole argumentation for the change is pretty bad, the more I think about it.
I do agree that with fantastic design you can make early game and early midgame more interesting, however I think its a bit naive that they on average are gonna be anywhere near as interesting as the later stages of the game. Thus, the core issue here is that we start too early on. Building your first 2 hellions or first reaper or expansion still isn't interesting. Marginally more interesting than building your 7th worker, but.... it still is kinda a waste of time. The real solution for the future of the RTS genre is to let us start at the fun parts.
And out of everything to criticize Blizzard for w/ sc2, early game and early midgame isn't where I would be focussing.
That's also what I think is the core point of the article. It's not "just regenerating mutalisks" or "just siege tanks that can be picked up" or "just the LotV economy". It's all of it combined that alienates the game from it's roots. It's the fact that instead of making tank/marine playable, they introduced the widow mine as just a stronger tool and they seem to be doing similar things now with the cyclone for mech and the ravager for roach/hydra.
I don't think alot of people disagree that Blizzard aren't doing a good enough job of properly reworking exisitng units, and I would have liked to see him focus on this part mainly.
Take for instance the Banshee. In LotV, the Banshee was given a new upgrade, “Hyperflight Rotors”. It increases the Banshee’s movement speed by 1. What is Blizzard's reasoning? “Banshees are not used enough, so we'll make them uncatchable by ground units; this way, people will build more Banshees; this way, their opponent will be forced to build the existing anti-air counters, which belong to the underused units as well”. This reasoning is fundamentally aberrant as it will invariably lead to the well-known HotS early game TvP Oracle problem, triggering a forced chain of reactions instead of giving freedom to the user with versatile tools. Initially, Blizzard even considered 7 range Banshees—what kind of nonsense is that? Such extreme measures could only beg for more hardcounters. One needs to be much more subtle.
I can just answer this one very quickly. They didn't want Overseers + Mutas to hardcounter Banshees in the late game. But yes, generally speaking you (DWF) is correct when it comes to Blizzard liking hardcounters too much (I hate Ultralisk armor buff too).
|
|
|
On April 12 2015 22:54 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 21:58 Hider wrote: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. Whats your thought on this post then? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/465001-near-impossible-reduce-skill-in-competitive-gamesAbove link felt like a less extreme version of what DWF argues with less irrelevant analogies and more relevant examples. But perhaps because the examples were so direct (rather than vague) the flaws in the argumentation were apparent to anyone. It takes 3 seconds to anyone with the slightest ounce of bona fides to realize that the thesis defended in Spaghettification is the exact, extreme opposite of what your link is saying. Literally the unadulterated antithesis. Good luck with your slandering campaign, and by all means stay true to your ID and keep dodging hot bullets like this.
Look maybe afterall I've been too harsh on you, and I will stop commenting now. But it's really hard to understand the essence of your points. Its possible that I was applying (unintentional) strawmans as I didn't properly understand what you were saying (though I am pretty sure you edited a part yesterday).
But if you plan to make such long articles in the future, I think you should split it into a series of 3 parts (one with spells on everything, one with hardcouners and perhaps one on timecontraction), with more bullet points, space and fewer non-Starcraft analogies.
|
Funnily enough, it turns out that the rest of this thread is significantly more interesting to read than the OP. At least creating that must be counted as OP's achievement 
|
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.
I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
|
On April 12 2015 23:59 kelbs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2015 13:49 SC2John wrote: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. 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. I am certainly not a good writer so maybe I'm trying to talk above my own understanding here. That said, it seems to me that rhetoric loses it's effect when people cannot understand it. It certainly loses its effect when people actively stop paying attention. I know TheDwf mentioned "people who think time is money" in his article, but the simple truth is that no one wants to read an unorganized wall of text. If your goal was to spur discussion, then my point is that I think you could have done that a lot more effectively. But again, thank you for sharing regardless.
I think that the people who posted in this thread that they liked the way the OP is made are very happy to learn that they are "no one" d:
|
On April 12 2015 23:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +But not everything is faster. Only the macro is faster. If you slow down all the macro, your first two hellions can be harassing at the other side of the map before the next two are out. If you don't slow down the macro, you might as well wait for the next two hellions because the ratio of production to movement is much more in the favor of production. I still fail to see the implications a bit, but from a general perspective, I don't disagree that movement speed and production should be balanced together. Anyway, you started out by saying that DWF was correct (or somewhat like that), but did DWF specifically come to the conclusion that macro speed is too fast relative to movement speed?
I think he did multiple times.
Besides, contraction of time naturally takes its toll on an inherently slow material like the artillery. So the designers take a piece of artillery and put it on steroids, increasing its attack rate and giving it special movement; this bastardization is then called “improvement,” with the designers failing to see that a piece of artillery without the traditional weaknesses of a piece of artillery makes little sense.
One of SC2's problems is that, at times, the game punishes aggressive multitasking because of hyper-development. It is simply better to allocate your user resources to passive building rather than “being cute”.
There is most likely much more to be found in there if I would just reread it.
Show nested quote +It's about giving the 4hellions or the 5 roaches more time before "the next wave of production" makes these unit numbers insignificant. So let me be clear: If you buffed the movement speed of Roaches and maintained production, (and balanced it in different ways), the intended gameplay would still be similar?
The problem I have with this approach is that it evaportes unit relations, as happened in HotS with everything around the medivac, a unit that previously was defendable with all sorts of playstyles now requires specific hardcounters because proper defensive placement with *something* to shoot air isn't enough anymore. You make mutas or you die. Or the mutalisk itself against Protoss and Zerg in particular (that bandaid spore crawler solution...).
Similar, if you buffed the roaches movement speed, relations such as stalkers kiting roaches early game would break and roaches would be straight up better in early engagments, not just in walking across the map. In partiuclar movement speed is a delicate matter because it has huge strategical implementations on which units you can use against a unit.
Show nested quote +The twelve worker start is one of the best cases that shows how blizzard hasn't understood anything. The 12worker start accelerates the game's economy by 1 minute real time. But it doesn't even lead to "more action" early. Many units that create action - stalkers, hellions, reapers - are not accelerated by this because the crux to getting them out is the build time of the production and tech buildings. They come out 1 minute faster! I don't think anyone imagined more here.
No they don't even! Instead of watching 30seconds of worker movement and a pylon at 9, we watch 10seconds of worker building and a pylon at 13. Then maybe there is a small gap removed until the first gate is put down (or not, time will tell about the best build orders). All in all we "win" like 30seconds. For all build orders and everything thrown out of the window. Have you seen how late the first reaper arrives? How is that "more action"?
The change could be good - in the sense that we would actually win that minute without fucking everything early game up - if they really put time into analyzing the differences and made other adjustments to actually win time, like removing the depot requirment of barracks or so.
Show nested quote +
when we are talking about 10min breaks between games and uncertain set up times until the game even begins - is bullshit to begin with. The whole argumentation for the change is pretty bad, the more I think about it.
I do agree that with fantastic design you can make early game and early midgame more interesting, however I think its a bit naive that they on average are gonna be anywhere near as interesting as the later stages of the game. Thus, the core issue here is that we start too early on. Building your first 2 hellions or first reaper or expansion still isn't interesting. Marginally more interesting than building your 7th worker, but.... it still is kinda a waste of time. The real solution for the future of the RTS genre is to let us start at the fun parts. And out of everything to criticize Blizzard for w/ sc2, early game and early midgame isn't where I would be focussing.
I don't agree that the lategame is more fun than the rest of the game. There are some very exciting early and early-midgame possibilities, in particular in TvT and TvZ including banshees. In general the aggressions that can be done without falling vastly behind and that are easy to anticipate/scout for the opponent so he doesn't run into an easy loss make for great games.
Games are like stories, they need a build up. I want to know the story how someone got to his midgame setup, not just starting everybody with it. The "boring" early game is exactly the fault of blizzard trying to get into "the more fun part" of the game. Instead of playing the early game out, they headstart it into the mid- and lategame by not equalizing the possibilities of the races, but rather just making standardized "you have your way with him now, and he has your way with you later" assymetries. When it should really be, "you try to have your way with him, but he also puts the hurt on you and now you guys have to deal with this fucked up situation and I'm not going to provide either of you with an immortal to just not let this happen".
Show nested quote +
That's also what I think is the core point of the article. It's not "just regenerating mutalisks" or "just siege tanks that can be picked up" or "just the LotV economy". It's all of it combined that alienates the game from it's roots. It's the fact that instead of making tank/marine playable, they introduced the widow mine as just a stronger tool and they seem to be doing similar things now with the cyclone for mech and the ravager for roach/hydra.
I don't think alot of people disagree that Blizzard aren't doing a good enough job of properly reworking exisitng units. I guess my point here is more what this article specifically brought to highlight that or expand or that? If he wanted to write an article where he went in deep and explained why this was problematic I would be on par with it. But he just goes everywhere and speaks so vaguely w/ many analogies. In the end, the average reader won't be more informed, but he sure knows how to follow a circilejerk on how much Blizzard sucks.
But it isn't an article that "just touches the subject of reworking units". Or the subject of "reworking economy". It is about the whole direction the game goes with LotV. The ideas behind all the concepts, and how those ideas are rotten.
|
I asked for tldr but didnt get it so just fast readed something and forgot it already but
Back to SC2. Think about the various negative feelings many of its own players have towards it. What makes the game frustrating? What makes it stressful? What creates the so common ladder anxiety? “Competitiveness”? No. (Or rather, not only.) Some people affected by this in SC2 are competing outside with no problem whatsoever. What lies behind all of this is the lack of control.
I have never heard of so stupid thing as my ladder anxiety is becaused by lack of control.
The cause of my ladder anxiety is that I cannot kinda accept im worse than before. I got into high master, next season I was scared as hell. I thought my friend list was following closely my rank. Huge pressure to be good. That leaded to less playing = less losing. It had nothing to do with units, maps, balance, design.
|
There is most likely much more to be found in there if I would just reread it.
To me it seemed as he was talking about speed in general or the lack of immobility of Siege Tanks (everything has to be mobile), which seems to be different from what your talking about with the Roach.
I don't agree that the lategame is more fun than the rest of the game. There are some very exciting early and early-midgame possibilities, in particular in TvT and TvZ including banshees
I said I found early game and early midgame less interesting. a typical game first gets interesting once your past 3+ bases (and I think you said somewhere along those lines as well previiously).
Games are like stories, they need a build up. I want to know the story how someone got to his midgame setup, not just starting everybody with it.
I think the lack of story part might be a reason why I never enjoyed multipler FPS while always prerefed RTSs. However, it can definitely be maintained with removal of the early stages. But it just needs to start at a different point in time and continue further on.
Similar, if you buffed the roaches movement speed, relations such as stalkers kiting roaches early game would break and roaches would be straight up better in early engagments, not just in walking across the map. In partiuclar movement speed is a delicate matter because it has huge strategical implementations on which units you can use against a unit.
I think that's taking the discussion somewhere else. Obvously interactions must be rebalanced to take this into account, but I think that's more of a sideissue. Whether productionspeed is too fast relative to movementspeed is a different subject I myself haven't really thought of before.
|
On April 12 2015 23:38 Hider wrote:
Look maybe afterall I've been too harsh on you, and I will stop commenting now. But it's really hard to understand the essence of your points. Its possible that somewhere I was applying strawmans as I didn't properly understand what you were saying (though I am pretty sure you edited a part yesterday). But in the future I think you should split it up and add more bullet points, more space and fewer non-Starcraft analogies.
Oh, no, no, no, little thief. You are not going to get off that lightly. You came to pillage, you took what you wanted to take and now you blame the architecture of the mansion? No, no, no. I edited nothing. The only thing I edited is translated instead of traduced in Spaghettification. PM a moderator or whoever has the power to see it to confirm. My “thesis” about the paradoxical nature of time in RTS was so complicated to understand that as soon as you stopped wanting to paint me as a pseudo-intellectual fraud, you started getting it.
Oh, how I feel pity for you. This situation is so cruel… You were so, so sure to have me at last… You suddenly appeared with a triumphant shout, proudly waving this link to prove that I am a fraud; but reality is a boomerang and hit you hard in the face. So you started doubting… The cold arrogance in the voice disappeared, replaced with the velvet of the “perhaps” and the conditionals… And now, after a basic effort of good will, it dawned upon you that you were probably wrong on the whole line. You are now so embarrassed… And you can feel embarrassed indeed…
How far should I push the lesson? Should I humiliate you the way you tried to humiliate me, or should I be merciful? What should be your sentence, Hider?
By all means stay and keep thinking. This mansion is your mansion. The architect wasn't some kind of dishevelled mad scientist and had his own good reasons to build it in that “twisted” way. You have still not fully understood what this text meant; otherwise you wouldn't say that the two first parts (which are split up) are superfluous. If you want to leave, leave. If you wish to stay, no one is going to persecute you. Not me at least; I know better than playing a childish game of wits that I know won before it even starts.
User was warned for this post
|
Oh, how I feel pity for you. This situation is so cruel… You were so, so sure to have me at last… You suddenly appeared with a triumphant shout, proudly waving this link to prove that I am a fraud; but reality is a boomerang and hit you hard in the face. So you started doubting… The cold arrogance in the voice disappeared, replaced with the velvet of the “perhaps” and the conditionals… And now, after a basic effort of good will, it dawned upon you that you were probably wrong on the whole line. You are now so embarrassed… And you can feel embarrassed indeed…
When you make such an insulting comment, I couldn't help myself but continuing replying. Let's go back briefly; My issue with your article was always twofold:
(1) Time contraction doesn't seem to be going anywhere. You provide no reasoning for why there is any issue in the game with too fast movement speed + "luck" is the wrong term to describe what happens when you make the game too fast).
(2) Poorly structured with lots of irrelevant analogies
Pretty sure I never said you were wrong about hardcounters or spellcasters. And I think those areas cannot be highlighted enough and therefore it is indeed dumb of me to overfocus on the whole time-element (but my criticism is still valid and your whole post is way over the line here). But let me clear: I regret that, but it doesn't make me embarrased or completely wrong and make everything you say correct. Rather, I think I should have ignored some of the flaws and focussed on what is more important going forward with LOTV.
When I said I perhaps made unintentional strawmans it was a result of (in hindsight) not being sure (despite reading most of the article several times by now) what your actually point is. So I might have been critical on the points of the article a bit too quickly while the main issue perhaps is with the structure/writing.
The architect wasn't some kind of dishevelled mad scientist and had his own good reasons to build it in that “twisted” way. f you want to leave, leave. If you wish to stay, no one is going to persecute you. Not me at least; I know better than playing a childish game of wits that I know won before it even starts.
Sad to see you aren't taking my advice of using fewer irrelvant analogies.
You have still not fully understood what this text meant
You say writing is a passion of yours, but you must realize that your not a skilled writer if you cannot communicate effectively. It doesn't make you right or great and its not embarrasing for the reader if he has no clue what your talking about.
|
On April 11 2015 22:18 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2015 22:06 ETisME wrote:On April 11 2015 21:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2015 20:53 ETisME wrote:
whole thing is way too objective so I will just leave my comments out.
There is a huge mistake in the WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! Graph
if you want to present the bw to lotv time line, you can use a line graph, but putting moba there at the end makes no sense.
You should keep it as sc to BW
Wol to hots to lotv
And then moba (which is difficult to do because of their item system)
but then we would see how horrible your graph is.
Because it would appear all there races are getting close to moba which is the most viewers and most popular genre now (implying sc2 is heading the right direction) This graph is sarcastic Or rather, semi-sarcastic. You understood the main point, even if your interpretation is not mine. I didn't add SC to BW because there was no significant change in the ratio. You can even see that from WoL to LotV, the ratio for Terran and Zerg is actually very stable and does not raise. And I was kind with Protoss, I didn't count Hallucination or Phase Mode from the Prism + I counted the Oracle as a pure spellcaster (3 active abilities). So the phenomenon I am talking about is even bigger. I like that facetious graph. I'm sure many people will hate it because it's "manipulative"! ("Horrible" as you put it.) I think the biggest problem I have with it is that why even putting MOBA at the end? Why not MMORPG then? The graph would be sarcastic if MOBA (having most abilities of all) has the worst viewership performance of all (or other measurable indicators), implying a relationship that is getting worse. Precisely because the Blizzsters are importing logics from other domains without understanding why they work in said other domains. And I did choose MOBA precisely because this is the number one reference in success for a significant part of the "community". [ Not because I think MOBA = pressing random buttons, if you believe this is what I'm implying.] MMORPG would work too, you're right, and there is an allusion to this when I say they have a War3-like conception of micro (War3 being known as mixing RTS with elements from a RPG). It does.  Otherwise we wouldn't have this interesting conversation.
sorry for late reply
you meant that blizzard is copying MOBA because MOBA is no.1 reference?
Is that your observation that blizzard is copying the logic (unit design?) from other genre or you have actual proof other than sc2 getting more abilities in the game?
I think having more abilities are completely OK, since SC2 is far different than WC3 style in every way possible.
So long the spell casters and units are having distinctively different function and characteristics, it's perfectly ok to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
