Balance team says...

Anyone ever refer to the buildings that cast spells in WC3 as "casters?"

No.

I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

Casters are units abilities that use energy. This is a broad term term that people understand. I didn't make this term up, it's derived from the Blizzard community, and every time Blizzard used the term 'Caster' it was used to describe units that cast spells that use energy. The fact that you see the term differently doesn't mean Blizzard does. Macro mechanics does not make sense in that context. If they said they're finalizing Casters and they meant macro mechanics, then they would have said macro mechanics.

The macro mechanic abilities have nothing to do with unit spells, so there's no reason they would be developed together. One affects resource control; the other affects unit balance. It doesn't make sense in context. How hard is this to understand?

The only reason you think they're talking about Macro mechanics is because you want to believe they're talking it, and are being stubborn and ignorant.

I really wish I could ignore you but ignorance is my pet peeve.

- Edited definition

---

I'd like to contribute to this discussion a little. In your sentence where it says "When people say caster"; I think you should add when people say caster while in a conversation about units.

If you are talking about units, than it is clear that you mean caster units. Considering there aren't very many buildings in starcraft which cast an ability, aside from shield recharge and comsat scan, that is really the only reason caster is mostly a unit discussion.

Technically, everything in the game, every doodad, every building, every resource, and every unit, is a unit. You guys really should stop arguing semantics.

Agreed. This is a stupid arguement.

Quote:

---

Considering there aren't very many buildings in starcraft which cast an ability, aside from shield recharge and comsat scan, that is really the only reason caster is mostly a unit discussion.

---

Communication is about understanding what words historically mean and using the word that the receiving party thinks means what you think it means. Otherwise, you are failing to communicate.

If you use an unqualified word like "caster", it means what we all expect it to mean: units that cast spells based on a pool of energy. If Blizzard meant to include the Obelisk in this message, then they should have specifically mentioned it or otherwise used a more general term that would naturally lead people to "things that cast spells including buildings".

So either Blizzard failed in their attempt to communicate, or ArcherofAiur is reading into it his own personal preferences, interpreting words to make an argument or a point rather than to receive information. Odds are the latter is the case; it's not like he hasn't done that before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Communication is about understanding what words historically mean and using the word that the receiving party thinks means what you think it means. Otherwise, you are failing to communicate.

If you use an unqualified word like "caster", it means what we all expect it to mean: units that cast spells based on a pool of energy. If Blizzard meant to include the Obelisk in this message, then they should have specifically mentioned it or otherwise used a more general term that would naturally lead people to "things that cast spells including buildings".

So either Blizzard failed in their attempt to communicate, or ArcherofAiur is reading into it his own personal preferences, interpreting words to make an argument or a point rather than to receive information. Odds are the latter is the case; it's not like he hasn't done that before.

---

You are still arguing semantics, and unless dictionaries across the globe made a mistake in the definition of semantics, I think this is a stupid discussion and it needs to end.

Quote:

---

You are still arguing semantics, and unless dictionaries across the globe made a mistake in the definition of semantics, I think this is a stupid discussion and it needs to end.

---

If people are allowed to redefine words to mean whatever they want them to mean, and thus interpret any statement to mean whatever they would like it to, then there's no point in arguing about anything at all.

This kind of rhetorical gymnastics must be fought whenever possible. Just because you think it's OK for Archer to redefine words as he sees fit doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

If people are allowed to redefine words to mean whatever they want them to mean, and thus interpret any statement to mean whatever they would like it to, then there's no point in arguing about anything at all.

This kind of rhetorical gymnastics must be fought whenever possible. Just because you think it's OK for Archer to redefine words as he sees fit doesn't mean the rest of us do.

---

If one person doesn't have the authority to redefine words, who gives one person the authority to define it in the first place? You are making a ridiculous argument in an attempt to show everyone interprets everything in an identical way.

I have news for you all, a unit is everything in the game. So, under your definition, a caster involves only units, therefore it involves everything in the game. Prove me wrong. So now a mineral field is a caster... you are brilliant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santrega

I'd like to contribute to this discussion a little. In your sentence where it says "When people say caster"; I think you should add when people say caster while in a conversation about units.

If you are talking about units, than it is clear that you mean caster units. Considering there aren't very many buildings in starcraft which cast an ability, aside from shield recharge and comsat scan, that is really the only reason caster is mostly a unit discussion.

Technically, everything in the game, every doodad, every building, every resource, and every unit, is a unit. You guys really should stop arguing semantics.

---

The ones claiming that buildings are technically units and therefore can be included in the definition of 'caster' are the ones arguing semantics. If the developers were talking specifically about the Obelisk, they would have said it as such. Considering they're talking about the development of casters, I've a suspicion that they're talking more about the High Templar, Disruptor and Mothership; that they're getting close to finalizing these units' abilities. After all, these three units have been juggling and swapping new abilities all throughout development. Virtually every build had a different ability or different distribution of abilities between them.

Like Nicol said, the first thing that must be established before engaging in a logical debate is a standard definition of terms. "Bad" for you could mean stubbing your toe, but "bad" for someone else could mean a nuclear holocaust in an orphanage. Building fair, valid arguments requires a common foundation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

Like Nicol said, the first thing that must be established before engaging in a logical debate is a standard definition of terms. "Bad" for you could mean stubbing your toe, but "bad" for someone else could mean a nuclear holocaust in an orphanage. Building fair, valid arguments requires a common foundation.

---

When you can actually prove the standard definition of the term caster as meaning what you say it means, I will conform to your definition.

Actually, Here is proof your definition is wrong, and the standard definition is:

1) a person or thing that casts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caster