Santa Cruz/UCSC/831 Smash: The Chillest Villains

[shehehe11]

oh ****

the fight is on!

 

[metalreflectslime]

Not Pit

oh ****

the fight is on!

That ain't

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

This paragraph kind of illustrates the fallacy in your main argument - you're making claims about what OUGHT to be on the basis of what IS. Your criterion for what 'makes sense' or what 'should' be in the game is simply whether it's in BW or not, and not any external sense of what good game design is - you're letting BW DEFINE what RTS is "supposed" to be. So your arguments against SC2 in effect boil down to nothing more than "it's not BW."

Pocky is challenging you to think critically about whether things like workers not automining when rallied to minerals actually improves the game instead of just being additional arbitrary tech skill.

sheridan, no where in the quoted statement have i said that features in BW are what OUGHT to be. perhaps you inferred,from when i was stating what IS in BW, that i think they are what RTS SHOULD be. but all i said is that the feature is there, and hint that i personally like it. in my previous posts, i've said that sc is more skill demanding than sc2, which is what pocky would call an 'unfounded ad hominem' used to insult a game that i hate. in actuality my hate has nothing to do with the skill demand at all, but that BW and korean progaming as i know it is declining and sc2 has a role in this.

again i've never said that what should be in the game is whether it's in BW or not, but you can infer this from my statement, though wrongfully so; because i am simply saying the feature is there and we can either like it or hate it. as for deciding whether it is good design or not, again i'll back down claiming i don't have enough experience in that subject matter.
'good design' is as abstract as 'good art.' is it good because it takes skill? is it good because it sells well? is it good because it appeals to the player in an aestethic sense or even personal//emotional sense? Even if i were to be experienced in 'good design', other people would have different opinions simply because good design is such a vaguely defined and abstract matter. why is the Mona Lisa so famous, when almost any cookie cutter artist (myself included, check out my portrait of BoA Kwon =D) can draw something more technically realistic? obviously Mona Lisa is a good art for different reasons than technical skill of the artist, though because 'good art' is not really defined and differs from culture to culture, region to region, person to persion, time frame to time frame, one can even argue that the Mona Lisa is in fact not good art at all.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I see, I've misunderstood what you meant by "makes sense," as I don't know why you would interpret pocky's use of something "making sense" as asking why something happens, when I think it's pretty clear that he means "does it make sense as good game design." That's what the entirety of this argument stems from, and not really anything else. I mean we don't need to be reminded that things happen because they are programmed to happen.

The ad hominems pocky is referring to is when you deride his opinion based on his APM and perceived skill. These have nothing to do with understanding game design generally, and pocky's points mostly have been based on game design principles that are inherent in all games and not just RTS. Mainly, that adding arbitrary mindless tech skill is a flaw. The example of the workers is tedious, as you say, but it is also mindless, because you wouldn't ever not want to have a worker mine when rallied to minerals - it's not a decision you have to make, but the game forces you to take extra steps to do it anyway. The conscious decision to keep it in a game would be just adding difficulty for the sake of adding difficulty, and this is almost universally a game design flaw. The difficulty in a game should arise naturally from the decisions you have to make in short amounts of time, and from the amount of control you have over your characters/units. Difficulty for its own sake is really just masturbation.

So then you go on to address (sort of) whether or not BW would be a better game w/o X or Y features, though you're pretty reticent to make any real judgements about them, and seem to just hedge your bets instead, saying you can't KNOW but you can IMAGINE. Well duh, but you can't put something into practice without imagining it first. If you're unwilling to make any judgements at all about whether something may likely be better in theory, then you can't really even have a conversation about game design at all =/

And you then later say that good game design is 'abstract' and entirely relative to each individual, but that's kind of a strange thing to say in the same breath as calling SC2 "a ****ty sequel that takes 50 apm because they made the gameplay and physics so much less skill demanding." Your criticism of SC2 makes it sound like any reduction in skill demand is bad, and pocky argues (as I would), that that is not the case. It would depend on whether the decrease in skill demand is from eliminating mindless techskill (like several examples pocky brings up) or from gameplay which truly less decision-intensive, and which you have less control over.

 

[Shroomed]

oh snap

$HIT JUS HIT THE FAN!

 

[Q-Tip]

sheridan + pocky = **** lol
so anyways what time tomorrow? same as usual?

 

[Crowing]

Going home tomorrow. I'll see ya guys next week. (maybe, people might be bogged down with midterms and stuff).

 

[joeplicate]

lata hata ;O



so btw dajuan, did u and leo break up ur bromance or something? or was it someone else i don't know about and/or not my business =P

 

[Shroomed]

nah, me and leo will never divorce

but it's someone you don't know

people have all been ****in ******** lately

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

I see, I've misunderstood what you meant by "makes sense," as I don't know why you would interpret pocky's use of something "making sense" as asking why something happens, when I think it's pretty clear that he means "does it make sense as good game design." That's what the entirety of this argument stems from, and not really anything else. I mean we don't need to be reminded that things happen because they are programmed to happen.

what i'm trying to get at is that to infer meanings can possibly lead to putting words into pocky's mouth because of it, therefore i interpret his question literally. i've suggested to pocky possiblilities of what he might have meant by 'make sense'. from when he says rallying workers to a mineral patch and the workers not automatically starting to mine doesn't make sense, i can infer that he does not like this feature. i believe the only thing you can gain by asking whther or not one thinks this feature 'makes sense' only accomplishes giving away whether one likes or dislikes the feature, because good design is so abstract in that pocky can argue that it is 'unnecessary' while i can argue that it adds 'skill demand' and not only could we both be possibly right, but we both can be possibly wrong depending on an arbitrary person's definition of what good design is. since some highly anticipated games, built specifically to have what some people think is 'good design' are actually far less appealing than expectations, and also since some games created without the intent of having 'good design' at all can in fact end up very appealing, there are no real universally defined and accepted factors or definitions of good design. i therefore believe 'good design' ends up being arbitrarily judged, boiling down to no more than if an individual likes the feature or not.

The ad hominems pocky is referring to is when you deride his opinion based on his APM and perceived skill. These have nothing to do with understanding game design generally, and pocky's points mostly have been based on game design principles that are inherent in all games and not just RTS. Mainly, that adding arbitrary mindless tech skill is a flaw. The example of the workers is tedious, as you say, but it is also mindless, because you wouldn't ever not want to have a worker mine when rallied to minerals - it's not a decision you have to make, but the game forces you to take extra steps to do it anyway. The conscious decision to keep it in a game would be just adding difficulty for the sake of adding difficulty, and this is almost universally a game design flaw. The difficulty in a game should arise naturally from the decisions you have to make in short amounts of time, and from the amount of control you have over your characters/units. Difficulty for its own sake is really just masturbation.

'These have nothing to do with understanding game design generally, and pocky's points mostly have been based on game design principles that are inherent in all games and not just RTS. Mainly, that adding arbitrary mindless tech skill is a flaw.'
-what you are doing is arbitrarily deciding what good game design is defined as, because you say that 'adding arbitrary mindless tech skill is a flaw.' some people don't think so. again we cannot universally describe what good design is, so, hypothetically speaking, all that can be inferred from that statement is that you also disklike that feature of the game, but i chose not to infer because it seems you are just stating what pocky said, reiterating his statement from on a neutral standpoint, not really taking sides.

So then you go on to address (sort of) whether or not BW would be a better game w/o X or Y features, though you're pretty reticent to make any real judgements about them, and seem to just hedge your bets instead, saying you can't KNOW but you can IMAGINE. Well duh, but you can't put something into practice without imagining it first. If you're unwilling to make any judgements at all about whether something may likely be better in theory, then you can't really even have a conversation about game design at all =/

i'm reticent in making any real judgement about the X and Y features of the game because i've already known from the beginning of this argument that arguing about gameplay is completely useless and only shows whther or not someone likes or dislikes the argued subject. you seem to have misunderstood my intentions in arguing with pocky. before you've said that gameplay is the origin of this argument, but it is not. my intent is to hurt pocky emotionally and make him feel bad about himself so that i feel compensated or to make him see things through my eyes and acknowledge he was wrong, because i feel upset when he mechanically said that deletion of jon747's account is completely justified because the company had legal rights to do so. this similar topic has always come up time after time in history. because of jim crow laws, were states completly justified in mistreating blacks just because they had legal rights to do so? the question answers itself.

he is not even bothering to empathize with the significant loss the community and viewers have to deal with in his judgement that deletion of jon747's account is justified. jon was a korean uploading vids for the foreign community, not very fluent in english and didn't fully understand copyrights. i know this because when i asked him for videos of jaedong and nada for my school powerpoint presenation on starcraft, he personally sent me several videos highlighting impressive speed and control of both within the next day, and in his struggling broken english he kindly offered to cut the videos for me to show only the first person highlights. he also stated to the public in his very same struggling english that he didn't know why his account was deleted, that maybe it was because he got caught in the middle of KeSPA and Blizzard's feud. also when warned to take some videos down by English speaking viewers, he stated again in his broken english that 'other people had them so it was okay', in reluctance to leave the viewers with missing videos. thousands of fans all across the world relied on his channel if they were not able to stay late enough for the livestream, and also to rewatch and study old videos because we as foreigners do not have the 2 korean television channels in which starcraft is broadcasted. he uploaded the videos punctually, even during on-season where handful of games to cut and upload, he made sure they were up early next morning.
not to disrespect brandon but to further illustrate jon's single handed efforts to bring to the foreign community, even brandon with all his hard work has trouble finding the time and will to upload smash videos. imagine how much harder it was for jon as starcraft videos are longer and came out more frequent. he even uploaded opening and closing ceremonies of seasons and tournaments to give the most to foreign fans.

he is also disregarding the history in his account; valuable starcraft history from late 1990s to current 2000s, from boxer to jaedong within those 10,000 vids. simply by comparing crowd camera views going forward in time chronologically through the videos you can see the amount of spectators increase from dozens, to hundreds, to thousands. you can see how the gameplay has progressed and evolved, distinct in each bonjwa era. you can also see the increase in stage size and the stage prestige. it is the history of the first video game ever to become a national spectator sport, the history of something historical. it the history of history, the history of the first e-sport.

perhaps it is too liberal to view a mere youtube channel in the regard that i have, so let me try to illustrate by using a comparison. imagine something or someone you deepy love and care for, perhaps a family member or a lover, is slowly losing his or her life due to the morally unjust actions of someone else. imagine someone says that the person slowly poisoning your loved one's actions were in fact completely justified because he has legal rights to do so. how would you feel and react? this argument is in fact solely stems from emotions and morals

 

[joeplicate]

nah, me and leo will never divorce

but it's someone you don't know

people have all been ****in ******** lately

i c

yeah leo seems really cool
hopefully the starcraft talk is like an std, and if i ignore it, it will go away

see you guys tomorrow!!

 

[hkt.dusk]

i c

yeah leo seems really cool
hopefully the starcraft talk is like an std, and if i ignore it, it will go away

see you guys tomorrow!!

mb UR LIKE AN STD

IF U IGNORE IT, ITS STILL THERE
WITH GLASSES
SMILINGLY SHEEPISHLY AT YOU

ad hominem DAT BIAATCHh

 

[Crowing]

Oooo snapz!

 

[joeplicate]

hahhahahahaha

climbing into ur economics room
snatching your schooling up

 

[kirbyraeg]

sup ucsc

i heard you were bros

 

[Zoap]

walls of text suck stop talking so much.

 

[joeplicate]

both of you guys speak the truth ^_^

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

And you then later say that good game design is 'abstract' and entirely relative to each individual, but that's kind of a strange thing to say in the same breath as calling SC2 "a ****ty sequel that takes 50 apm because they made the gameplay and physics so much less skill demanding." Your criticism of SC2 makes it sound like any reduction in skill demand is bad, and pocky argues (as I would), that that is not the case. It would depend on whether the decrease in skill demand is from eliminating mindless techskill (like several examples pocky brings up) or from gameplay which truly less decision-intensive, and which you have less control over.

yes, i do make it sound like any reduction in skill demand is bad, but again that it not my point and that is not what i mean. i mean that any change to BW at all would mean it is no longer BW, no longer what is generally revered as a masterpiece by competitive players of all game genres. SC2 is an altered version of its original, BW. you can argue the mona lisa is not perfect, you can even dislike it yourself, but you would be completley foolish to say that it is not a masterpiece. if you attack the mona lisa in suggesting that it would be 'better' with some features changed, you will be met with strong opposition, but that argument would be arbitrary and completely lead to nowhere. though some people already know this before the argument even starts (like me) people will still naturally defend what they believe in. if pocky said 'BW is a masterpiece, but i wouldn't say it was perfect.' we would not be having this argument.

since good game design is abstract, pocky cannot possibly get anywhere arguing with me about game design. unles he is actually foolish enough to think he knows what good design actually is, his argument over game design cannot be seen as anything more than an attack on my intelligence. we've discussed game design, which you both think was the main issue of the argument, but can be completely disregarded as it ultimately becomes arbitrary and looked at as nothing more as an attempt in proving each other's point is more correct. though i will still defend that my perspective holds more water because as truly a competitive player I am far more experienced in the subject. but aside from that look where the argument starts. the issue you both haven't addressed yet, and what i've already known to be the main issue of the whole thing; the termination of jon747's account.

 

[pockyD]

if pocky said 'BW is a masterpiece, but i wouldn't say it was perfect.' we would not be having this argument.

Oh if only I had said that

brood war is a better game at this point, and it's the best game of all time, but there are many MANY elements of it that are simply outdated and inferior

best game != flawless game

Do you get now why I (correctly) assumed you didn't bother to read my posts?

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

pocky, it is true you later said that but originally you said 'how anyone could not think that some of the 'apm-requiring' mechanics of bw aren't complete nonsense is beyond me. may as well require the player be jump roping while playing' which is why we were arguing about game design. we had two opposing viewpoints about it, that you think some features are bad good design while i said they were fine the way they are.

at the point you said 'brood war is a better game at this point, and it's the best game of all time, but there are many MANY elements of it that are simply outdated and inferior' we both came to an unspoken mutual agreement on that notion, but that didn't change the fact we both disagreed on game design, which is why the argument continued. exactly where in our initial disagreement have we argued ANYTHING about whether or not BW was the best game of all time? the only points in the initial disagreement were about game design and the termination of jon747's account (you have not replied to it yet). there was no mention nor disagreement about whther or not BW was the best game of all time.

perhaps i should have been more clear when i said 'if pocky said 'BW is a masterpiece, but i wouldn't say it was perfect.' we would not be having this argument'. i meant if you said that instead of saying 'how anyone could not think that some of the 'apm-requiring' mechanics of bw aren't complete nonsense is beyond me. may as well require the player be jump roping while playing' there would be no argument.

 

[pockyD]

what is a flaw if not a design mistake?

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

what is a flaw if not a design mistake?

in my words, i would say a flaw is something that leads to the downfall of something.

lets use example of BW's feature of workers not mining a mineral patch automatically when rallied to a mineral patch. for reasons unstated, you have said that to you this feature does not 'make sense'. i don't recally you actually admitting to disliking it or not though, but you argue that this feature adds 'unnecessary actions' and is therefore bad design because it deteriorates the gameplay, according to what you believe gameplay is. in your perspective this feature is a flaw.

but, in my perspective, this feature actually adds to the gameplay because it adds a sense of accomplishment when i remember to order my rallied workers mine, especially when it is late in the game where other lower apm opponents get too caught up with macro and micro to do the same. in my perspective, it is not contributing to the downfall of gameplay because i actually like it, and in fact it actually adds to the gameplay in my perspective.

therefore for this feature, since people (especially competitive players who deal with the feature all the time) can say it only adds to BW's gameplay rather than contribute to the downfall of gameplay, we cannot resolutely call this a flaw.

'what is a flaw if not a design mistake'

well, what actually is good design? if we can't really define what good design is, we can't really define what a design mistake is. in the world of art, there is no good design, nor is there bad design. there is simply only design, in which people may or may not like.

 

[pockyD]

well if you want to make up your own definition for words in spite of the real definition, you can't really expect to have a productive discussion with anybody

ESPECIALLY when you weren't even the one who invoked the word to begin with

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

yes, i do make it sound like any reduction in skill demand is bad, but again that it not my point and that is not what i mean. i mean that any change to BW at all would mean it is no longer BW, no longer what is generally revered as a masterpiece by competitive players of all game genres. SC2 is an altered version of its original, BW.

OK so you ARE making claims about what ought to be on the basis of what is? Because I see no other way to interpret this plus calling SC2 "a ****ty sequel that takes 50 apm because they made the gameplay and physics so much less skill demanding." So it seems at the end of the day, you don't like SC2 because it's not BW. And if you're NOT saying that, the only other way to interpret "i mean that any change to BW at all would mean it is no longer BW" is the literal statement that SC2 != BW, which is an empty statement that needs no pointing out, so it's just a dodge. Either way, something's wrong here.

since good game design is abstract, pocky cannot possibly get anywhere arguing with me about game design. unles he is actually foolish enough to think he knows what good design actually is, his argument over game design cannot be seen as anything more than an attack on my intelligence. we've discussed game design, which you both think was the main issue of the argument, but can be completely disregarded as it ultimately becomes arbitrary and looked at as nothing more as an attempt in proving each other's point is more correct.

Ok great, if everything is as arbitrary as you say it is, then you necessarily must retract your statement about SC2 being '****ty,' since apparently you have no good reason to objectively judge it from a game design standpoint. All you can permit yourself to say is that you don't like it, and you are perfectly willing to accept that many other people like it more than BW. And then we can all just go home and play tic-tac-toe and war, because there is no real reason that they are in principle better games than BW or chess.

Just because no single thing is universally agreed upon does not automatically condemn it to the realm of being purely subjective. After all, unless you believe that morality comes from a divine source, you're a moral relativist, but certainly you wouldn't ascribe the same degree of arbitrariness and subjectivity to morality as you do to game design. Fact is, neither morality nor game design are arbitrary, and you can't hide behind that to avoid talking about whether mindless tech skill mechanics are flaws or not. You might as well say that it's completely arbitrary for my sense of morality to include not murdering people, and that I have no right to comment on other people's morality that allows them to kill indiscriminately. There are myriad reasons why morality is not arbitrary, and the same is true of game design, cooking, movies, literature, and anything else that has -some- degree of subjectivity to it; there is always wiggle room for subjectivity, but that only gets you so far.

If you actually want to learn about game design, a good place to start would be to head over to www.sirlin.net and read his articles about SF2T, DKC2, Puzzle Fighter, and so on.

though i will still defend that my perspective holds more water because as truly a competitive player I am far more experienced in the subject.

Argument from authority. This is not a pissing contest, you can't hide behind your experience, which I'm not really even sure is greater than mine or pocky's in the realm of competitive gaming as a whole (doesn't matter really). And frankly, your perspectives on game design call into question the value of that experience.

but aside from that look where the argument starts. the issue you both haven't addressed yet, and what i've already known to be the main issue of the whole thing; the termination of jon747's account.

You're not gonna bait-and-switch me, because I don't play SC so I don't care - I mean I empathize with the community but it doesn't affect me in the slightest. All pocky said was that blizzard had the legal right to do so, without stating whether he agreed with or approves of it. At least that's what a literal interpretation of what he said is, and you said a few posts ago that you are trying to avoid putting words into people's mouths, by taking the literal interpretation.

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

well if you want to make up your own definition for words in spite of the real definition, you can't really expect to have a productive discussion with anybody

ESPECIALLY when you weren't even the one who invoked the word to begin with

i am sorry, you asked me 'what is a flaw'. i thought that you wanted what i thought that was, i did not expect that you wanted a dictionary definition of a word.

'flaw
–noun
1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.
2. a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.
3. a crack, break, breach, or rent'

if i may ask what are you exactly trying to get at by asking me this question?

 

[pockyD]

i don't know if you're incredibly dense or trolling me but in either case I'm not feeling like humoring you

either way, your inability to follow a thread of discussion (or your ability to fake the total lack of understanding) is incredible

 

[Brian]

It seems like he doesn't want to admit he's wrong so he's picking on semantics rather than addressing the heart of the issue. I know, I've been there before.

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

OK so you ARE making claims about what ought to be on the basis of what is? Because I see no other way to interpret this plus calling SC2 "a ****ty sequel that takes 50 apm because they made the gameplay and physics so much less skill demanding." So it seems at the end of the day, you don't like SC2 because it's not BW. And if you're NOT saying that, the only other way to interpret "i mean that any change to BW at all would mean it is no longer BW" is the literal statement that SC2 != BW, which is an empty statement that needs no pointing out, so it's just a dodge. Either way, something's wrong here.

"SC2 is a ****ty sequal that takes 50 apm because they made the gameplay and physics so much less skill demanding." i openly admit this is an merely an insult. whther or not it is true and adds to the argument of gameplay is irrelevent, for the argument itself is irrelevent and arbitrary. this is just my hatred, this is my attempt at offending people, plain and simple. the real reason i do not like sc2 because it is not BW? no, i do like sc2 because it is killing BW and korean progaming as i know it. it feels like i am repeating myself. there are many starcraft mods that are also very different from BW, but i am completely indifferent about them in that i don't hate them because they are not negatively affecting BW or korean progaming much. therefore i chose not to offend it.

Ok great, if everything is as arbitrary as you say it is, then you necessarily must retract your statement about SC2 being '****ty,' since apparently you have no good reason to objectively judge it from a game design standpoint. All you can permit yourself to say is that you don't like it, and you are perfectly willing to accept that many other people like it more than BW. And then we can all just go home and play tic-tac-toe and war, because there is no real reason that they are in principle better games than BW or chess.

Just because no single thing is universally agreed upon does not automatically condemn it to the realm of being purely subjective. After all, unless you believe that morality comes from a divine source, you're a moral relativist, but certainly you wouldn't ascribe the same degree of arbitrariness and subjectivity to morality as you do to game design. Fact is, neither morality nor game design are arbitrary, and you can't hide behind that to avoid talking about whether mindless tech skill mechanics are flaws or not. You might as well say that it's completely arbitrary for my sense of morality to include not murdering people, and that I have no right to comment on other people's morality that allows them to kill indiscriminately. There are myriad reasons why morality is not arbitrary, and the same is true of game design, cooking, movies, literature, and anything else that has -some- degree of subjectivity to it; there is always wiggle room for subjectivity, but that only gets you so far.

If you actually want to learn about game design, a good place to start would be to head over to www.sirlin.net and read his articles about SF2T, DKC2, Puzzle Fighter, and so on.

i do not have to retract my statement of SC2 being ****ty because it is my right to say so, just like despite shroom being a very good player and one of the best in california, norcal (and everyone else who wishes so) still has the right to say he sucks as an american citezen.

'Fact is, neither morality nor game design are arbitrary, and you can't hide behind that to avoid talking about whether mindless tech skill mechanics are flaws or not' i am NOT hiding behind game design being arbitrary to avoid talking about whether 'mindless tech skill mechanics' are flaws or not. i am using it to explain how my perspective can be just as valid as pocky's.

'You might as well say that it's completely arbitrary for my sense of morality to include not murdering people, and that I have no right to comment on other people's morality that allows them to kill indiscriminately.

just because something is arbitrary, it definately does not mean that you don't have the right to argue your perspective on that something. it is your freedom of speech. THIS IS WHAT I'M DOING. what i'm trying to do is simply show pocky my perspective, in hope that he might realize he was wrong about 'mindless tech skill' being considered 'bad design', though i can't really say and show that he's wrong because it is an arbitrary matter. i am no longer trying to offend pocky, i am trying to open him to a different perspetive. i am even willing to personally teach him how to reach 200 apm to do so, so that he can FEEL the game mechanics like i do, and hopefully grow to like them, because i personally feel that he's missing something truly beautiful. it's a **** shame to let him remain thinking this way if in actuality he could grow to like these features.

Argument from authority. This is not a pissing contest, you can't hide behind your experience, which I'm not really even sure is greater than mine or pocky's in the realm of competitive gaming as a whole (doesn't matter really). And frankly, your perspectives on game design call into question the value of that experience.

first of all, the argument on game design is in fact a 'pissing contest' for what we are doing is trying to prove whose perspective is 'more right', though game design is abstract and we are getting nowhere really, except offending and aggravating each other. therefore it is in fact a 'pissing contest.' though right now i am trying do more than offend and aggravate by trying to show you and pocky my perspective, because i think that perhaps you two might learn to like the feature, or at least understand how it is not necessarily'bad design', but you both seem unwilling to open your eyes or even try to empathize at all.

i'm not talking about competitive experience in general, but competitive experience in broodwar. lets talk about hockey, which before in this thread you've shown that your into. if someone like me, who has very little experience at all about hockey, were to argue with one of the team players about hockey's game design, would their opinions not be worth more than mine? they actually FEEL how the game design works, and i would only be imaging.

You're not gonna bait-and-switch me, because I don't play SC so I don't care - I mean I empathize with the community but it doesn't affect me in the slightest. All pocky said was that blizzard had the legal right to do so, without stating whether he agreed with or approves of it. At least that's what a literal interpretation of what he said is, and you said a few posts ago that you are trying to avoid putting words into people's mouths, by taking the literal interpretation.

i am not trying to 'bait-and-switch you'; it was one of the points in pocky's first post. i am sorry if i put words into pocky's mouth, but i am still offended by the way he mechanically said that. that is why i keep bringing up the subject. he has not even addressed whether he agrees or disagree's with blizzard's decision, so i am unable to apologize for my intruding words or work to see if i can open his eyes to my perspective on the subject.

 

[pockyD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

hmm sorry pocky, i admit you two are using words that i am not farmiliar with. i changed it

 

[frotaz37]

HAHA!!! POCKY!!! AND SHERIDAN!!! U GUYS R SO SMART, LOL. UR ****IN OWNING THIS GUY LOL ****IN KEEP IT UP THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TRY TO ARGUE WITH SUCH PROS LOOLLLLLL

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

plz pay attention 2 me and recognize that I think you gusy ownz and now when we see each other I can be like "hey remmbr me!! Im the guy who was like "U GO!!!" when you were TOTALLY OWNIN that dood on smashboarrz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! r we better friends now? do you like me more now?

 

[Brian]

you see what happens when there is no hub

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Hey Frotaz, I think we're just moving to the VGM hub now =/
vgmcentral.no-ip.com
Rad and pocky can come too. NK is there also sometimes.

 

[pockyD]

i got banned a while ago for having no vgm

and i continue to have almost no vgm

 

[joeplicate]

hahaha i agree with frotaz

also, sheridan
would you be interested in potentially climbing today?

 

[hkt.dusk]

Djannun - we should play on a weekday at the student union building. the table there is legit. its right next to the bookstore. Same with tennis, if you manage to find a racket


PS i think its more fun to say dajuan's name in 3 syllables

like....

da Huuu WANN




PPS - i still dont get how muta micro is more decision making than 'mindless apm'
the only decision making that goes into that is where you want your cluster to go, but that isnt the difficult part about it. Given the option, youd want your mutalisks always attacking while moving, like phoenixes in sc2

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

fine. if all you guys are gonna try to do is insult me and futily attempt to prove me wrong rather than actually trying to understand what i have to say then i won't be nice anymore. i said that game design is abstract in which you can argue skill demand is bad or good for gameplay. the only reason you would think a feature is bad is because you dislike it, a point that i kept aiming for but you both dodge it because you were too scared to address it. you dislike features and then you deem them 'mindless' and 'unecessary'. then you argue you against what you feel is unfair, against the feautures that separate better players from people like you.i might never be able to be as technical as silent wolf, or maybe i might never be able to be as smart as mango, but do i ***** about game features in a pitiful cry for competition to be closer in my reach? no. because i'm not a diva and i accept and RESPECT those who do things better than me. you cannot yearn for equality in competition. i can see why ken and mango don't want anything to do with smash anymore, not because they don't like the game itself, but because the community is filled with divas like you who do not know the meaning of respect.any clever rebuttal won't change the fact that deep down inside you know i'm right.

 

[joeplicate]

mike

know that i care about your arguments exactly as much as i care about sheridan and pocky's

which is absolutely zero


i wish i could moderate this thread!! lol

 

[pockyD]

well i mean we already all know you weren't actually saying what you thought you were saying, which means you were effectively wrong everywhere except inside your own head. all that remains is you grandstanding

go ahead and ask mango if he's quitting the game because me and sheridan don't respect him (as if a there's a single ounce of truth anywhere in that sentence). who's putting words in peoples' mouths now?



anyway, setting aside the fact that phoenixes AUTOMATICALLY fire while moving, every single action you take with your mutas is a significant decision; whether the angle you takes leaves you vulnerable to extra turret shots, whether you can get away with not dancing and just sitting to gain maximum efficiency shot-wise (avoiding the necessity of being frame perfect for shot-firing), whether you want to stay clumped to minimize damage from autotargeting, spread out to avoid splash, irradiate, etc.

the decision isn't as simple as "i don't want my mutas to die" - there's microdecisions that work towards that goal

the decision for workers IS as simple as "i want my workers to mine minerals", and given that there's a pre-existing mechanic where the workers will eventually spread out from one mineral patch, it's fairly clear that blizzard intended that to be near the lowest level of intent

 

[Shroomed]

lol @ lack of respect for mango