Printable View
I linked you Blizzard's official compendium that exemplifies their definition of Units. Look at Unit Stats. Do you see Buildings grouped there? Do you see Doodad stats? No.
Buildings are marked as Buildings. Even if they are ever categorized as Units, they clearly marked as Buildings.
Common sense, Santrega. Common sense. Stop asking for proof if you're going to continue to ignore it.
I believe the dev team would state this about their casters if it was one of the last things on their 'to do list' with the Protoss; since they apparently had something already planned with the obelisk a while ago.
Think about it, it's one less thing we need to speculate on. The Mothership, distruptor, and High Templar are ready. I guess this could mean the phoenix is ready, which also implies the entire airforce is ready. Now once I start seeing similar tweets for the Zerg, I think we'll be almost home free.
I cannot believe such an ambiguous twit created this much discussion.
I think the main issue here is that you actually believe you have common sense. I have never argued with your definition being right or wrong, only that you are being foolish arguing with someone elses definition as if you are right. You are not right... The definition of caster is not only what you say it is, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, it will never be only what you say it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
@Santrega
If you want me to apologize for something I didn't do wrong, then I can't help you. I argue points that are wrong based on logic and common sense, not on opinion. False statements lead to misconceptions, and further more to false expectations. The terms we are seeing and using are generally used by Blizzard and the community. Unit means Player Controlled Unit. If you disagree then it is your opinion, and I would respect that. If you ever stated that Buildings are Units (outside context of the Editor), I would correct you. That's the kind of guy I am.
If someone believed Zerg to be the worst race in the game, I'd be fine with that. If they said Zerg are the worst race and assumed it's because their workers have low HP, I would speak out against the statement. Even if I were wrong, it doesn't make that statement any more true.
This will be my final attempt to bring out the common sense you say you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Saying: All Poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.
Dogs in this case are a classification, or just a class for short and in terms of programming.
Poodles in this case would be a subclass.
Now, you can say "poodles are dogs" and be correct. Just as you can say "military units in starcraft are units", and be correct. You cannot say, however, "all units in starcraft are military units". I will proceed with my explanation:
Individual items in the editor would be called "objects", not "Units". Yes, a unit is a measurement, but its also a classification to identify something.
In order to identify something, you have to define its characteristics. What would be a characteristic of a unit? Does it have to be built? Does it have to move? Does it have to be killed? Does it just have to be something on the screen?
Blizzard has confusingly named a subclass the same thing as the class. Unit is the class which describes every object on the screen. A building can be built, can move, can be destroyed, and has all characteristics of a military unit. Under your definition though, all units are military units. Under blizzards website, they only speak of military units and building separately because the strategy site is divided into subclasses. If they actually showed you the hierarchy of objects in the game, you'd see this differently.
This is because Military Units is the CONTEXT of what defines the word 'Unit'; thus the same CONTEXT of defining the word 'Caster'. Blizzard uses Unit to define military units when speaking generally to the public. Blizzard uses 'Caster' to define spellcasting units, under that same context.
They were not speaking in context to the Editor. I am not speaking in context to the Editor. My use of the word 'Units' should not be interpreted as 'Classification of all objects in the Editor'. I believe I was pretty clear on that.
Hurry up guys. Next we have to discuss what the words "final", "stages" and "development" mean.
Clearly your common sense has been pushed out by the word context. I was not speaking in the context of the editor either, but in the context of actually developing an application or game. You are aware that blizzard is developing starcraft II, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Archer, I dont want to argue what those meanings are.. I want Context to be the next word of choice... Context should be the next discussion... As in, how is that short sentence giving a context that agrees with anyones definition of unit :/
Correct me then. Here is the series of events as I see it.
1- Blizzard's use of the word Caster is interpreted to include the Obelisk, since it has spells that use energy
2- I give the generally accepted definition of Caster, being Units that have spells that use energy. Keep in mind that these are my words, not Blizzard's.
3- You are making the point that my use of the term 'Units' is a broad term that, in Blizzard's usage in the editor, can be interpretted as 'All objects in the Game'
Thus, you have been arguing my use of the word 'Units', perhaps thinking it was another ambiguous Blizzard term. I've explained to you that when I used Units in the definition of a Caster, I mean specifically player controlled units, not buildings. I gave you the reason that I used this word specifically, because Blizzard uses it in the same context. You have been arguing my definition, so why do you persist in trying to tell me that 'Units can mean something else' when that isn't how I used it to describe Casters?
The whole point of this was to say Buildings are excluded from the general term Caster, even if it has spells that can be cast. Whether or not you like my wording has nothing to do with that point. It seems to me you're simply trying to point out holes in my examples for the sake of proving me wrong in any way possible.