Balance team says...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

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?

---

How did this become about you? You weren't arguing about how you believe, you were saying what blizzard believes both unit and casters mean, as if you knew what is and isnt accepted as a definition. I'm not arguing with what you used to describe something, I am arguing with you trying to tell someone else that their definition is wrong. I don't believe your definition is wrong, but I also don't believe archers definition is wrong.

It is possible you are both right, and in that scenario, blizzard could be referring to buildings that cast in their tweet.

Casters could mean Obelisk, High templar, distrupter, mothership, and phoenix. Casters could mean High templar, distrupter, mothership and phoenix. Casters could mean High templar, distrupters and mothership. Casters could mean High templar and distrupter.


Blizzard simply didnt give enough info.

The term Casters has never been used (by Blizzard) to describe or include buildings with spells. This isn't something that's up for interpretation. Opinions I respect, but what Archer said was a pure false assumption. If anything should be proved, it's proof that Blizzard is talking about Macro mechanics. They would have said Macro straight up if they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

The term Casters has never been used (by Blizzard) to describe or include buildings with spells. This isn't something that's up for interpretation.

---

Caster has never been used to refer to the phoenix either. And their is a good reason why they might (might! not saying they did, please dont start another one of these) be developing the obelisk with the rest of the casters and that is the obelisk is so connected with the rest of the protoss casters through recharge energy.

That could be true, considering the power of the spells could be OP if used with mass Obelisks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

The term Casters has never been used (by Blizzard) to describe or include buildings with spells. This isn't something that's up for interpretation. Opinions I respect, but what Archer said was a pure false assumption. If anything should be proved, it's proof that Blizzard is talking about Macro mechanics. They would have said Macro straight up if they were.

---

So, what you are saying is... If blizzard wanted to group two subclasses called "Military Units" and "Buildings with abilities" into the term "Casters" and they wanted to specify that protoss casters, they should have instead said "macro mechanics" even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the tweet?

Obelisk isnt a macro mechanic, its a building which provides a macro mechanic. Obelisk is a building that can cast an ability, anything that casts can be considered a caster. You can't consider a military unit to be a macro mechanic, therefore, they would not be able to put macro mechanic into the tweet and still make any sort of sense.

Don't expect another reply from me, I really am done. I wouldnt want you staying up all night for this, which is the only reason I'm telling you this.

Lets call it a draw seriously. Ive got better things to do....like argue with hamshank about whether Starcraft "ripped off" other fictitious works.

They could have used the word Spells or Abilities but instead chose specifically, 'Casters'.

"Blizzard is finalizing development on all Protoss abilities".

No we are done with this.

Quote:

---

I believe its open to interpretation, and that its not worded in a way that can be proven as exactly one thing or the other. Caster in this case could be used as a general term, and until someone in this thread proves to me that the standard definition in gaming for the word Caster is "units" and by units we are really talking about Units that make up the races in starcraft, I will not agree that your definition is the only definition.

---

You're falling for Archer's rhetorical game. It works like this:

1: He makes up a definition to suit his a priori position.

2: We argue against that based on the fact that the definition is obviously made up.

3: You demand proof that the definition is not made up.

4: Proving a negative is impossible.

QED: Archer wins.

The simple fact is this: if you ask people who play the game what caster means, they will not include "buildings" in that definition. Whether that's due to lack of buildings that can cast spells or lack of their consideration of the ComSat's ComScan as a "spell" is irrelevant.

Could it be possible that Blizzard was talking about the Obelisk? Yes, it could be possible. It could also be possible that the universe was created 5 minutes ago with all of the evidence set up to show that it is much older. However, it isn't likely. And thus, there's no reason to assume that it is without other evidence.

And since it is ArcherofAiur who's making the extraordinary claim (that words don't mean what we all think they do, and that Blizzard is talking about something that they're clearly not), it is he who must provide evidence that Blizzard is talking about the Obelisk.

Quote:

---

If you are going to go by what Blizzard's definition is, we can do that, but blizzards definition of a unit is everything in the game.

---

No, it isn't. Blizzard's definition of a unit is exactly what our definition of a unit is. Buildings are not units because buildings have the "building" property. Now, both buildings and units are entities (the general-purpose game concept for any transient thing in a game). And certainly, if you crack open the SC engine, you will find that buildings and units share many of the same data structures. But you will also find that buildings and units have different data structures too.

In game design terms, units and buildings are not the same: there are different rules for units and buildings. In engine terms, there are significant differences between them.

Quote:

---

I cannot believe such an ambiguous twit created this much discussion.

---

I can't believe that you managed to create ambiguity from a completely unambiguous comment. Kudos: your rhetorical skills have managed to subvert intelligence, reason, and common sense again.