Balance team says...

[Triceron]

Like you mentioned Santrega, it's about context. I believe Archer's interpretation of Blizzard's statement is way out of context based on ambiguous wording.

Archer is a broad definition of 'Caster' to prove his point. I believe it's wrong because it's out of context, and in the definition applies to a more specific and appropriate meaning. I'm not arguing that buildings and units can't be all classified as 'Casters'. I'm arguing that buildings and units are not the same in the context of Blizzard's statement, based on how the term has been used.

Archer's argument is trivial, but nonetheless faulty. His opinion is not logical, and I believe it's worth arguing against.

@ Santrega - Do you believe Blizzard includes the Macro Buildings when they say they're finalizing development on the Casters?

[mr. peasant]

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

Counter-argument: When I typed the word 'tank' into that dictionary, it makes no mention of it being used as a generic term for a 'person or thing that absorbs large amounts of damage' yet this is a fairly accepted term in most games. Therefore, this dictionary clearly does not cover all uses of all words; specifically in relation to game terminology.

[ArcherofAiur]

What point was i trying to prove. I said and I quote

Personally I think there refering to the protoss macro mechanics which could mean their are multiple macro casters for the protoss.

I didnt say thats 100% what this means. I said that was my interpretation. I say this because since the begining I have refered to them as macro casters and up until this point no one has gotten outraged (funny). But again this is one of the stupidest things to argue over that I have ever seen.

[Santrega]

Counter-argument: When I typed the word 'tank' into that dictionary, it makes no mention of it being used as a generic term for a 'person or thing that absorbs large amounts of damage' yet this is a fairly accepted term in most games. Therefore, this dictionary clearly does not cover all uses of all words; specifically in relation to game terminology.

It doesn't have to cover all uses of the word. It only has to not cover a use to be used as proof that the definition for that word does not exist.

If you are trying to prove the existence of a definition, you need to find where the definition exists somewhere. If you are trying to prove the non-existence of a definition, you prove where it does not exist.

So, your counter argument gave proof that tank does not include that definition on dictionary.com, but you did nothing to prove the non-existence of the definition as I said it, because well, you can't unprove something already proven.

@ Santrega - Do you believe Blizzard includes the Macro Buildings when they say they're finalizing development on the Casters?

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. There is another way you can prove what blizzard means by that statement, which is to ask them and receive a more specific and detailed answer.

[Triceron]

Fair enough but isnt the Obelisk a macro caster? And presumably energy recharge also affects all the protoss casters. It seems to me they would need to know whether that ability would or would not be in the game before entering the "final" stage of development.

You were trying to make the point that Blizzard was working on the Obelisk based on this thread. If you hadn't wrote this post, I wouldn't have had to argue the point. Differing opinions do not bother me. The problem is your opinion on the subject led you to make an assumption that does not make sense in context to Blizzard's statement. You addressed Macro Mechanics to a statement that was (under general agreement) not about Macro Mechanics.

@ Santrega

There are no true definitions to gaming terms, only general terms that are agreed upon. If someone says Caster in WoW, it means Mages, Warlocks, and any other hybrid class that primarily uses spells. It's arguable that a Hybrid physical DPS/Spell user is a Caster simply because they can cast spells. It's generally agreed upon that Caster means Primary Spell Caster. In SC, Caster is generally agreed upon to be player-controlled units that can cast spells that use energy; leaning towards those units that rely on spells more than attacks. It's not a true definition, but it's one that you can use in any SC forum and be understood in context. The defintion of 'Unit' including buildings, doodads and environment pieces is not a generally accepted term, even if you believe it to be. If you said 'Unit' in a SC forum, it's generally agreed upon that you mean player-controlled units and not anything else. Anything else would require more specification.

I am not arguing opinion. I'm interpreting the statement using logic and context. In context, it doesn't make sense for Blizzard to include Macro Mechanics if they didn't outright say 'Macro Mechanics', which is the term they use in regards to the Obelisk.

[Santrega]

You were trying to make the point that Blizzard was working on the Obelisk based on this thread. If you hadn't wrote this post, I wouldn't have had to argue the point. Differing opinions do not bother me. The problem is your opinion on the subject led you to make an assumption that does not make sense in context to Blizzard's statement. You addressed Macro Mechanics to a statement that was (under general agreement) not about Macro Mechanics.

@ Santrega

There are no true definitions to gaming terms, only general terms that are agreed upon. If someone says Caster in WoW, it means Mages, Warlocks, and any other hybrid class that primarily uses spells. It's arguable that a Hybrid physical DPS/Spell user is a Caster simply because they can cast spells. It's generally agreed upon that Caster means Primary Spell Caster. In SC, Caster is generally agreed upon to be player-controlled units that can cast spells that use energy; leaning towards those units that rely on spells more than attacks. It's not a true definition, but it's one that you can use in any SC forum and be understood in context. The defintion of 'Unit' including buildings, doodads and environment pieces is not a generally accepted term, even if you believe it to be. If you said 'Unit' in a SC forum, it's generally agreed upon that you mean player-controlled units and not anything else. Anything else would require more specification.

I am not arguing opinion. I'm interpreting the statement using logic and context. In context, it doesn't make sense for Blizzard to include Macro Mechanics if they didn't outright say 'Macro Mechanics', which is the term they use in regards to the Obelisk.

I have only one question for you... What is the generally agreed upon definition of caster in twitter? You have told me everything else, but blizzard did not make that statement in a starcraft forum, nor a gaming forum, but on twitter. 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.

[Triceron]

It's the same definition that I've been explaining from the beginning.

It is a term derived from other games, and has been used since War2 to describe 'spell casting units'. The meaning never changed to include buildings.

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.

http://classic.battle.net/scc/terran/unit.shtml

I beg to differ.

[Santrega]

It's the same definition that I've been explaining from the beginning.

It is a term derived from other games, and has been used since War2 to describe 'spell casting units'. The meaning never changed to include buildings. Does this not make sense?

The main issue here, is you are claiming the general understanding of the definition for the word "Caster" in the entire starcraft player base, starcraft forum user base, blizzard, and now twitter is "units (Which needs to be defined more clearly in itself) that cast abilities".

If you are going to make this claim, I require proof that you have some reasonable knowledge on what the majority of any of these communties understand as the definition of casters.

Examples of reasonable knowledge include but are not limited to the following:

1) You have 10 years experience (Or even worked 10 years ago) working for blizzard and know exactly what was meant when the word "Casters" was first used in starcraft.

2) You have the ability to speak for thousands of people because you have asked their opinion, and in doing so, you got data which suggests what you are saying.

3) Michael Morhaime is your best friend, and he told you caster means units that cast rather than anything that casts...

4) You are an english major and can somehow find a loophole in how caster has an "er" after "cast" and how that doesn't mean a person or thing that casts.

http://classic.battle.net/scc/terran/unit.shtml

I beg to differ.

My rebuttal:




http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...itSettings.jpg




http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...paignUnits.jpg

[Triceron]

Do you need a blood and urine sample as well?

Think, Santrega - Would Blizzard reps use the word 'Caster' in their OWN statements if they didn't believe that it was a clear term? If it requires all of what you said to truly understand the meaning of the term 'caster' then they obviously would not have used it.

Again, it's a term that has been used by Blizzard and the community SINCE Warcraft 2. The definition has not changed since.

Edit - If you're using the Editor as your example, then that has to be in context. The Editor uses the term 'unit' as a general term for everything, because it is a measurement word. The general definition of Caster is not in context to the Campaign Editor. You're even proving my point as you can clearly see Player Controlled characters are categorized under 'Units' while Buildings are a separate subcategory.

[Santrega]

Do you need a blood and urine sample as well?

Think, Santrega - Would Blizzard reps use the word 'Caster' in their OWN statements if they didn't believe that it was a clear term? If it requires all of what you said to truly understand the meaning of the term 'caster' then they obviously would not have used it.

Again, it's a term that has been used by Blizzard and the community SINCE Warcraft 2. The definition has not changed since.

Twitter has a limit on how much you can type, 150 characters I believe... You don't really have the ability to be specific.. Clearly if its meant for units, you need to look at the pictures above and tell me why they believe units to include buildings and pretty much anything in the game? You linked a strategy page which breaks down the aspects of the game in a more specific manner, however, in twitter that is impossible.

I guess you are going to tell me the general understanding of the word impossible means that it can be done and should have been? You yourself don't even know what the term unit in the way you are using it means. If you disagree, please state what you believe "unit" means.

Edit - If you're using the Editor as your example, then that has to be in context. The Editor uses the term 'unit' as a general term for everything, because it is a measurement word. The general definition of Caster is not in context to the Campaign Editor. You're even proving my point as you can clearly see Player Controlled characters are categorized under 'Units' while Buildings are a separate subcategory.

The editor is an example of what blizzard thinks the definition of unit is. Not an example of what you think unit is, or what you think blizzard thinks unit is, or what you think blizzard thinks the sc fanbase believes unit is. Blizzard does not believe a unit to be different than what they believe a unit to be just because they are editing a website, or editing a campaign editor.

This all comes back to arguing semantics. You claim it means one thing, because you believe you know best, and I think you are wrong. It's not that im arguing with your definition, its that I am arguing that you do not know best.