NOTE:Any feedback about my appearance, attire, sexuality, etc. is not welcome and will not be acknowledged.
"I should get brownie points for sticking to it and doing a number two!" Best part of the video, haha! I thought I would intro with it! My second casting practice is up, any critiques on my improvements, and how I can improve further, would be great!
I have decided to try my hand at learning to cast, better my speaking and public presentation skills, and score myself a potential job within the eSports and gaming industry, all while improving my league ranking in StarCraft II and attempting to learn high-end gameplay strategy analysis skills! (Biggest run-on sentence, ever!)
This replay is from IEM at Gamescom in Cologne, Germany (jealous!) 2012 and features Vortix (Z) vs. SuperNova (T)!
Pretty good for only your second one. I like the idea of the self analysis. Same concept used to improve in games, and it works well. I noticed definite improvements in most areas, and anything you were lacking in was basically covered in your post-game stuff.
YAY! Thanks, you guys! I'm glad to hear that I am getting somewhere! I know I have huge areas to improve upon still, but to know that I can make positive changes is a good start! ^^
I appreciate that you reduced the length of the parts before and after the game. Also, the less pronounced cleavage should at least reduce those arguments. Those points already show that you really listen to feedback, which is always a big plus.
Can't comment on the casting parts yet since i'm at work and don't have sound but i'll watch it in full when i get home.
On August 23 2012 17:50 Morfildur wrote: I appreciate that you reduced the length of the parts before and after the game. Also, the less pronounced cleavage should at least reduce those arguments. Those points already show that you really listen to feedback, which is always a big plus.
Can't comment on the casting parts yet since i'm at work and don't have sound but i'll watch it in full when i get home.
Yeah, I definitely listen to feedback, and the long part in the beginning in #1 was to trying to sum up what I was all about for people who don't know of me. It's hard to condense that a lot, I wasn't planning on rambling every video practice session, hah! From now on they should just be short notes on improvement goals I will have in mind for the cast.
I may or may not have buttoned one button more for this one. It may or may not have been intentional.
I watched from the midgame to the point where I decided the game was clearly over. For someone who just saw the thumbnail for the first vid honestly it was far better than I expected. Good voice and english quality (pretty good vocabularly for the average non professional sc2 caster) pretty good idea of what was going on in the game at least for what I expected.
For critique I'd say you need to count the nunmber of mining bases per player when the supply is pretty even. Keep track of supply is great for current strength but the economy is what ultimately wins games unless you have an unkillable deathball. It feels like you did routine supply checks which is a pretty good idea but if you check the number of mining bases it gives a good outlook as well. For example when Vortix was sieging the plantary in the 4th you could see in the minimap supernova was basically mined out in all otherbases which is why he had to put everything into defending it.
If you want to focus on being "insightful" more than a "play-by-play" I'd suggest you do that after you casted the game in a more play-by-play fashion because it's going to be a lot easier to retroactively decide where the key mistakes were and what the player who won was doing right. You have some kind of self-analysis section and I didn't watch most of it but I'm sure plenty of the fine folks here will be able to talk about that but you might want to add another section just for pure game analysis sports style where you go after the game was done and look through the replay. (but it's a lot of work, it's just a suggestion and I don't know what level of player you are that you'd want to be trying to be strategtic, and how far you intend to go with the casting)
Slayer... thanks for the insight! I'll add that to the list. I remember thinking about the mining bases and wanting to comment on them, but I think I forgot when it was appropriate. Haha.
I'm not sure what kind of caster I'd like to be. I am assuming that it will be hard for me to NOT be the play-by-play type, but I think it would be cool if I could make some sound analysis as well. I think that would break more stereotypes and be the harder job.
Except the sound, you should get a proper mic setup like djwheat etc. Surprising you haven´t when you dedicate so much time into these (Not just sc2) online videos
I only made it about 10 minutes into the cast, skipped to a bit of lategame.
Your game analysis is very, very poor and in some instances wrong. I would avoid doing it as much as possible.
You speak in short bursts of words without much excitement and long pauses during and in between sentences. Your stats sound like you're reading off of liquipedia.
At the beginning of the game, after player introductions, you should pan around the map a bit and explain the features of each map, to give "newb" viewers a chance to see the entire map.
I would watch the entire game beforehand since you're casting from replays; you miss a lot of the action going on because you don't watch the minimap. Maybe write down what happens so you can adequately cover drops or have a partner move the screen for you.
On August 24 2012 05:25 Facultyadjutant wrote: Evertything is awesome!
Except the sound, you should get a proper mic setup like djwheat etc. Surprising you haven´t when you dedicate so much time into these (Not just sc2) online videos
Sound only sucks on XSplit local recording. I still can't figure out why. The settings look as identical as possible to my stream settings. If you watch cast #1, the intro and outro have great sound quality because I use my webcam software, then when I switch to the in-game cast, the quality turns shittier. At least with this cast it's uniform!
On August 24 2012 05:40 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: I only made it about 10 minutes into the cast, skipped to a bit of lategame.
Your game analysis is very, very poor and in some instances wrong. I would avoid doing it as much as possible.
You speak in short bursts of words without much excitement and long pauses during and in between sentences. Your stats sound like you're reading off of liquipedia.
At the beginning of the game, after player introductions, you should pan around the map a bit and explain the features of each map, to give "newb" viewers a chance to see the entire map.
I would watch the entire game beforehand since you're casting from replays; you miss a lot of the action going on because you don't watch the minimap. Maybe write down what happens so you can adequately cover drops or have a partner move the screen for you.
That is INCREDIBLY stupid to avoid analysis. I only learn from trying, and if I don't commit without being afraid of being wrong, I will never improve.
I also disagree on my lack of emotion. Perhaps I need more, but I improved vastly from cast #1 and I think it's pretty decent burst in the right spots.
I do watch the game beforehand, but not too much. A real casting job would not have this possible, so I want to practice the hard stuff. Game knowledge and player knowledge (especially on Vortix) is lacking, but I'm working on it and it will come with time. To avoid it would put me in a rut and be idiotic...
Good call on the beginning of the game advice, though.
It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
On August 24 2012 05:40 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: I only made it about 10 minutes into the cast, skipped to a bit of lategame.
Your game analysis is very, very poor and in some instances wrong. I would avoid doing it as much as possible.
You speak in short bursts of words without much excitement and long pauses during and in between sentences. Your stats sound like you're reading off of liquipedia.
At the beginning of the game, after player introductions, you should pan around the map a bit and explain the features of each map, to give "newb" viewers a chance to see the entire map.
I would watch the entire game beforehand since you're casting from replays; you miss a lot of the action going on because you don't watch the minimap. Maybe write down what happens so you can adequately cover drops or have a partner move the screen for you.
That is INCREDIBLY stupid to avoid analysis. I only learn from trying, and if I don't commit without being afraid of being wrong, I will never improve.
I also disagree on my lack of emotion. Perhaps I need more, but I improved vastly from cast #1 and I think it's pretty decent burst in the right spots.
I do watch the game beforehand, but not too much. A real casting job would not have this possible, so I want to practice the hard stuff. Game knowledge and player knowledge (especially on Vortix) is lacking, but I'm working on it and it will come with time. To avoid it would put me in a rut and be idiotic...
Good call on the beginning of the game advice, though.
If you want to do analysis, please play a lot more games, watch a lot more tournaments, read forums, and improve your game knowledge. Right now, it's like listening to a third grader lecturing on thermodynamics; you're way out of your league.
I can barely tell the difference from your "exciting" voice to "explanatory" voice. It's flat and boring.
I only recommend watching the game beforehand and taking notes because you're highly inexperienced. You miss a lot of important things. Think of it as going into a game with a general gameplan and your build order on a piece of paper next to you. Right now you aren't good enough to "wing it" like major tournament casters.
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
I never got where I am today in anything thinking like this, and I will never adopt this kind of attitude. If I applied myself, I can be the best. Shaq doesn't do whatever because of his body type, this is completely different. I don't believe I am leagues stupider than every analytical caster, nor am I handicapped...
Of course I will be playing many games, and watching tournaments, and slowly improving, and failing at first. Thus is life.
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
I never got where I am today in anything thinking like this, and I will never adopt this kind of attitude. If I applied myself, I can be the best. Shaq doesn't do whatever because of his body type, this is completely different. I don't believe I am leagues stupider than every analytical caster, nor am I handicapped...
Of course I will be playing many games, and watching tournaments, and slowly improving, and failing at first. Thus is life.
Name one good analytical caster who's not in masters / gm league.
By your reasoning you should be able to solve the following problem in a few, attempts. After all, it's just a mental exercise.
Given the specific heat of water at 100MPA and 15 °C given cp = 4.1855 [J/(g·K)] (15 °C, 101.325 kPa). Use both the Peng-Robinson and virial equation of state for your calculations.
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
I never got where I am today in anything thinking like this, and I will never adopt this kind of attitude. If I applied myself, I can be the best. Shaq doesn't do whatever because of his body type, this is completely different. I don't believe I am leagues stupider than every analytical caster, nor am I handicapped...
Of course I will be playing many games, and watching tournaments, and slowly improving, and failing at first. Thus is life.
Name one good analytical caster who's not in masters / gm league.
By your reasoning you should be able to solve the following problem in a few, attempts. After all, it's just a mental exercise.
Given the specific heat of water at 100MPA and 15 °C given cp = 4.1855 [J/(g·K)] (15 °C, 101.325 kPa). Use both the Peng-Robinson and virial equation of state for your calculations.
If it was my goal to be able to solve problems like this, I would learn to do it.
And OF COURSE I want to league up and get to Masters league. I think I can be in Platinum/Diamond with pretty good analysis if I am focusing directly on this, watching games, and absorbing knowledge, though. I'm not looking to be perfect by attempt #2, or even #10. This is a career I want to make, it takes time.
Such poor arguments on your part. You act as if I am sitting here in Silver/Gold league telling you I won't do anything more to improve, and by tomorrow will magically be better than Day9. Hah!
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
I never got where I am today in anything thinking like this, and I will never adopt this kind of attitude. If I applied myself, I can be the best. Shaq doesn't do whatever because of his body type, this is completely different. I don't believe I am leagues stupider than every analytical caster, nor am I handicapped...
Of course I will be playing many games, and watching tournaments, and slowly improving, and failing at first. Thus is life.
Name one good analytical caster who's not in masters / gm league.
By your reasoning you should be able to solve the following problem in a few, attempts. After all, it's just a mental exercise.
Given the specific heat of water at 100MPA and 15 °C given cp = 4.1855 [J/(g·K)] (15 °C, 101.325 kPa). Use both the Peng-Robinson and virial equation of state for your calculations.
If it was my goal to be able to solve problems like this, I would learn to do it.
And OF COURSE I want to league up and get to Masters league. I think I can be in Platinum/Diamond with pretty good analysis if I am focusing directly on this, watching games, and absorbing knowledge, though. I'm not looking to be perfect by attempt #2, or even #10. This is a career I want to make, it takes time.
Such poor arguments on your part. You act as if I am sitting here in Silver/Gold league telling you I won't do anything more to improve, and by tomorrow will magically be better than Day9. Hah!
My point is this: You do not have the proper tools to analyze a game of starcraft. Watching you try to analyze the games is the equivalent of you trying to solve that problem tonight. There are much more important things for you to focus on, like having flowing, coherent sentences and interesting things to say. You gain nothing by analyzing the games at your current understanding.
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
I never got where I am today in anything thinking like this, and I will never adopt this kind of attitude. If I applied myself, I can be the best. Shaq doesn't do whatever because of his body type, this is completely different. I don't believe I am leagues stupider than every analytical caster, nor am I handicapped...
Of course I will be playing many games, and watching tournaments, and slowly improving, and failing at first. Thus is life.
By your reasoning you should be able to solve the following problem in a few, attempts. After all, it's just a mental exercise.
Given the specific heat of water at 100MPA and 15 °C given cp = 4.1855 [J/(g·K)] (15 °C, 101.325 kPa). Use both the Peng-Robinson and virial equation of state for your calculations.
Your example is just silly and is not a adequate depiction of her reasoning at all. It's not simply a mental exercise when the problem requires domain knowledge and contains impeding terminologies that hinder you from solving the problem. I can easily give you questions outside your field of expertise, label it as a mental exercise, then call you out for being unable to solve it.
You get to masters/gm by playing, the exact same thing that the masters players are doing to improve, among other things. Tara is casting in order to improve, and i dont see how thats not productive. Shes also doing other things, like playing and watching sc2.
Also, there are several casters who are not masters/gm, total biscuit and dj wheat are some examples.
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
I never got where I am today in anything thinking like this, and I will never adopt this kind of attitude. If I applied myself, I can be the best. Shaq doesn't do whatever because of his body type, this is completely different. I don't believe I am leagues stupider than every analytical caster, nor am I handicapped...
Of course I will be playing many games, and watching tournaments, and slowly improving, and failing at first. Thus is life.
Name one good analytical caster who's not in masters / gm league.
By your reasoning you should be able to solve the following problem in a few, attempts. After all, it's just a mental exercise.
Given the specific heat of water at 100MPA and 15 °C given cp = 4.1855 [J/(g·K)] (15 °C, 101.325 kPa). Use both the Peng-Robinson and virial equation of state for your calculations.
If it was my goal to be able to solve problems like this, I would learn to do it.
And OF COURSE I want to league up and get to Masters league. I think I can be in Platinum/Diamond with pretty good analysis if I am focusing directly on this, watching games, and absorbing knowledge, though. I'm not looking to be perfect by attempt #2, or even #10. This is a career I want to make, it takes time.
Such poor arguments on your part. You act as if I am sitting here in Silver/Gold league telling you I won't do anything more to improve, and by tomorrow will magically be better than Day9. Hah!
My point is this: You do not have the proper tools to analyze a game of starcraft. Watching you try to analyze the games is the equivalent of you trying to solve that problem tonight. There are much more important things for you to focus on, like having flowing, coherent sentences and interesting things to say. You gain nothing by analyzing the games at your current understanding.
it still does not hurt to keep doing it. you learn by doing. one day when she has a better understanding she can look back on these videos and see things that are wrong. it'll only help in the long run. seriously why do you have such a big problem with this
On August 24 2012 05:40 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: I only made it about 10 minutes into the cast, skipped to a bit of lategame.
Your game analysis is very, very poor and in some instances wrong. I would avoid doing it as much as possible.
You speak in short bursts of words without much excitement and long pauses during and in between sentences. Your stats sound like you're reading off of liquipedia.
At the beginning of the game, after player introductions, you should pan around the map a bit and explain the features of each map, to give "newb" viewers a chance to see the entire map.
I would watch the entire game beforehand since you're casting from replays; you miss a lot of the action going on because you don't watch the minimap. Maybe write down what happens so you can adequately cover drops or have a partner move the screen for you.
That is INCREDIBLY stupid to avoid analysis. I only learn from trying, and if I don't commit without being afraid of being wrong, I will never improve.
I also disagree on my lack of emotion. Perhaps I need more, but I improved vastly from cast #1 and I think it's pretty decent burst in the right spots.
I do watch the game beforehand, but not too much. A real casting job would not have this possible, so I want to practice the hard stuff. Game knowledge and player knowledge (especially on Vortix) is lacking, but I'm working on it and it will come with time. To avoid it would put me in a rut and be idiotic...
Good call on the beginning of the game advice, though.
If you want to do analysis, please play a lot more games, watch a lot more tournaments, read forums, and improve your game knowledge. Right now, it's like listening to a third grader lecturing on thermodynamics; you're way out of your league.
I can barely tell the difference from your "exciting" voice to "explanatory" voice. It's flat and boring.
I only recommend watching the game beforehand and taking notes because you're highly inexperienced. You miss a lot of important things. Think of it as going into a game with a general gameplan and your build order on a piece of paper next to you. Right now you aren't good enough to "wing it" like major tournament casters.
This post is actually really good advice.
You could cast a game you KNOW someone good has casted, then watch the videos side by side and understand what the differences are, and importantly how they're doing it so much better. And then practice, practice, practice. Even if that means casting the same game 10x in a row, just so you can get comfortable doing everything 'perfect' in terms of what people enjoy in a cast, then slowly being able to do that consistently to fresh games.
But you really have to target one weakness at a time until it's improved substantially to improve as rapidly as possible (at least this is what i've noticed). Even people we disagree with often have very valid points underneath the stuff we dont like in their words
On August 24 2012 05:40 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: I only made it about 10 minutes into the cast, skipped to a bit of lategame.
Your game analysis is very, very poor and in some instances wrong. I would avoid doing it as much as possible.
You speak in short bursts of words without much excitement and long pauses during and in between sentences. Your stats sound like you're reading off of liquipedia.
At the beginning of the game, after player introductions, you should pan around the map a bit and explain the features of each map, to give "newb" viewers a chance to see the entire map.
I would watch the entire game beforehand since you're casting from replays; you miss a lot of the action going on because you don't watch the minimap. Maybe write down what happens so you can adequately cover drops or have a partner move the screen for you.
That is INCREDIBLY stupid to avoid analysis. I only learn from trying, and if I don't commit without being afraid of being wrong, I will never improve.
I also disagree on my lack of emotion. Perhaps I need more, but I improved vastly from cast #1 and I think it's pretty decent burst in the right spots.
I do watch the game beforehand, but not too much. A real casting job would not have this possible, so I want to practice the hard stuff. Game knowledge and player knowledge (especially on Vortix) is lacking, but I'm working on it and it will come with time. To avoid it would put me in a rut and be idiotic...
Good call on the beginning of the game advice, though.
If you want to do analysis, please play a lot more games, watch a lot more tournaments, read forums, and improve your game knowledge. Right now, it's like listening to a third grader lecturing on thermodynamics; you're way out of your league.
I can barely tell the difference from your "exciting" voice to "explanatory" voice. It's flat and boring.
I only recommend watching the game beforehand and taking notes because you're highly inexperienced. You miss a lot of important things. Think of it as going into a game with a general gameplan and your build order on a piece of paper next to you. Right now you aren't good enough to "wing it" like major tournament casters.
This post is actually really good advice.
You could cast a game you KNOW someone good has casted, then watch the videos side by side and understand what the differences are, and importantly how they're doing it so much better. And then practice, practice, practice. Even if that means casting the same game 10x in a row, just so you can get comfortable doing everything 'perfect' in terms of what people enjoy in a cast, then slowly being able to do that consistently to fresh games.
But you really have to target one weakness at a time until it's improved substantially to improve as rapidly as possible (at least this is what i've noticed). Even people we disagree with often have very valid points underneath the stuff we dont like in their words
Since people have been criticizing your analysis, I'll give it a listen and point out where it sounds terribly wrong or bad. For reference I've been GM twice with protoss, also high masters with random. I am multitasking while doing this so I will probably not notice subtle errors that I would if I were paying full attention.
Also my first time watching game 5, which I heard was a crazy good comeback.
Not an analysis point, but why does your sound sound so... canny? Something off-putting about your mic and the copious background canning effect.
You mentioned Supernova going reactor hellion to pressure before speed. Also note that Vortix gets gas right after queen in order to be able to speed fast enough to deal with this - he often likes to use more lings than others might, rather than more than 4 queen.
Small thing you could note when Vortix retook mid from hellions while doing muta harass a bit after 11:00. Reasoning on the ling is that when his muta first went in, Supernova didn't react in time and lost a lot of things, then finally marines started coming in, but in a disorganized manner. Now as they approach in force, Supernova's attention is likely fixated on the muta engagement. At this time Vortix sends his lings in to mid to take it, as he will lose least amount of units when Supernova is not focused on that engagement or does not notice it altogether - and it is easier to initiate multiple simultaneous fronts than it is to defend them. Thus Vortix takes the role of the initiator. Initiator vs defender is a focal point of many engagements, and often the attempt to gain the position of the initiator and force the defender onto the opponent is the reason for non-fully commital engagements.
Actually I'm a bit confused thus far (15 min in) what the "wrong analysis" parts refer to, as I'm not actually hearing anything I consider analysis as opposed to play by play.
You completely missed that Vortix was actually in the upper hand tactically and close to even strategically at 16:00 despite the supply disparity. Basically Supernova was too heavily invested in medivacs, not enough bio buffer, and was out of position with his bio at the gold, thus creating a fungal trap whilst simultaneously eroding all cover he might have had for his tanks. This in addition to ultras leading meant the ling buffer was unharried and quickly showed that Vortix's army was superior. It's really a matter of where the supply is, and in what composition, rather than the supplies themselves. This is something you can through experience, or someone explaining a lot of it to you. Also these are the types of cases that one tends to screw up on the spot while casting, due to not being able to project the "casting environment" whilst simultaneously analysing each situation dispassionately.
Yea there really isn't much analysis, so idk what people are complaining about. For instance at 19:20 at the crucial moment at the 4th, it's really completely play by play. For instance the positioning of Supernova's army suggested he wanted to create a ground funnel, thus not anticipating the broodlords fully (if at all). Given the scenario of the ground funnel, then what he did has plenty of time to work, as the primary issue is having his bio fungaled should they clump up for a moment. However, given that Vortix had broodlords coming, and in those numbers, the time buffer Supernova thought he had was actually an overestimate, so he needed to commit more bio units to hitting the hatchery if he wanted it down in time. Either way, it was a very close underestimation, as the 26 hp on the hatchery shows. However since Supernova probably would've overcompensated a bit in that situation since that base was the focal point of the zerg, it actually was probably a much larger swing than the 26 hp suggested in Supernova's mind. At this point the advantage, both in game and mentally, flips to Vortix. An aside is that Supernova was in a bind when it comes to retreating, as should he leave the choke, he's in prime position to be overrun by Vortix (even in the ground only situation), as hie medivac count meant that his bio buffer was anemic, thus causing extreme problems vs ling ultra infestor, which overrides any supply disparity that existed in the game.
Hmm rest of game is just people winging it really with some heuristics gained from practice so not much to say. Basically Supernova being dead and not wanting to be dead.
Hmm, well it certainly was a comeback, but not as crazy as I expected from hearsay lol.
On August 24 2012 17:52 EtherealDeath wrote: Since people have been criticizing your analysis, I'll give it a listen and point out where it sounds terribly wrong or bad. For reference I've been GM twice with protoss, also high masters with random. I am multitasking while doing this so I will probably not notice subtle errors that I would if I were paying full attention.
Also my first time watching game 5, which I heard was a crazy good comeback.
Not an analysis point, but why does your sound sound so... canny? Something off-putting about your mic and the copious background canning effect.
You mentioned Supernova going reactor hellion to pressure before speed. Also note that Vortix gets gas right after queen in order to be able to speed fast enough to deal with this - he often likes to use more lings than others might, rather than more than 4 queen.
Small thing you could note when Vortix retook mid from hellions while doing muta harass a bit after 11:00. Reasoning on the ling is that when his muta first went in, Supernova didn't react in time and lost a lot of things, then finally marines started coming in, but in a disorganized manner. Now as they approach in force, Supernova's attention is likely fixated on the muta engagement. At this time Vortix sends his lings in to mid to take it, as he will lose least amount of units when Supernova is not focused on that engagement or does not notice it altogether - and it is easier to initiate multiple simultaneous fronts than it is to defend them. Thus Vortix takes the role of the initiator. Initiator vs defender is a focal point of many engagements, and often the attempt to gain the position of the initiator and force the defender onto the opponent is the reason for non-fully commital engagements.
Actually I'm a bit confused thus far (15 min in) what the "wrong analysis" parts refer to, as I'm not actually hearing anything I consider analysis as opposed to play by play.
You completely missed that Vortix was actually in the upper hand tactically and close to even strategically at 16:00 despite the supply disparity. Basically Supernova was too heavily invested in medivacs, not enough bio buffer, and was out of position with his bio at the gold, thus creating a fungal trap whilst simultaneously eroding all cover he might have had for his tanks. This in addition to ultras leading meant the ling buffer was unharried and quickly showed that Vortix's army was superior. It's really a matter of where the supply is, and in what composition, rather than the supplies themselves. This is something you can through experience, or someone explaining a lot of it to you. Also these are the types of cases that one tends to screw up on the spot while casting, due to not being able to project the "casting environment" whilst simultaneously analysing each situation dispassionately.
Yea there really isn't much analysis, so idk what people are complaining about. For instance at 19:20 at the crucial moment at the 4th, it's really completely play by play. For instance the positioning of Supernova's army suggested he wanted to create a ground funnel, thus not anticipating the broodlords fully (if at all). Given the scenario of the ground funnel, then what he did has plenty of time to work, as the primary issue is having his bio fungaled should they clump up for a moment. However, given that Vortix had broodlords coming, and in those numbers, the time buffer Supernova thought he had was actually an overestimate, so he needed to commit more bio units to hitting the hatchery if he wanted it down in time. Either way, it was a very close underestimation, as the 26 hp on the hatchery shows. However since Supernova probably would've overcompensated a bit in that situation since that base was the focal point of the zerg, it actually was probably a much larger swing than the 26 hp suggested in Supernova's mind. At this point the advantage, both in game and mentally, flips to Vortix. An aside is that Supernova was in a bind when it comes to retreating, as should he leave the choke, he's in prime position to be overrun by Vortix (even in the ground only situation), as hie medivac count meant that his bio buffer was anemic, thus causing extreme problems vs ling ultra infestor, which overrides any supply disparity that existed in the game.
Hmm rest of game is just people winging it really with some heuristics gained from practice so not much to say. Basically Supernova being dead and not wanting to be dead.
Hmm, well it certainly was a comeback, but not as crazy as I expected from hearsay lol.
Wow, thanks so much! This helps a lot to see the game from a more analytic perspective. I feel that I have a better understanding of how much someone can miss in a game with an untrained eye. I think I'm slowly getting better at picking things up when I watch.
This was kind of like reading a transcript from a cast. I can read it and I don't miss things because of a fast pace, and more detail was put into it as well.
Don't ever mention first supply depot and first overlord unless you're pointing out something interesting (like positioning, overlord pathway etc.). Always try to explain what the build/ingame situation means => fast cc = econ oriented build, how can enemy counter it etc. - instead of simply describing what's happening. You're doing a decent job of this already but there's still room for improvement imo. Since you're doing analysis of your casts I don't think this will be a problem. good luck
On August 24 2012 20:24 Stratos wrote: Don't ever mention first supply depot and first overlord unless you're pointing out something interesting (like positioning, overlord pathway etc.). Always try to explain what the build/ingame situation means => fast cc = econ oriented build, how can enemy counter it etc. - instead of simply describing what's happening. You're doing a decent job of this already but there's still room for improvement imo. Since you're doing analysis of your casts I don't think this will be a problem. good luck
Hah! Yeah, supply depot was a bit silly, I even kind of interrupted myself to mention it. I think I felt as if I was talking too much about other shit, but it's early game, nothing was going on!
As far as the scouting overlord goes, I don't think that's too bad to mention. I guess the scouting drone/SCV, or the positioning of the overlord, would be more appropriate (i.e. the overlord placement scouting for drops/a third/outside opponent's base).
There are things you can and can't change, and game knowledge is definitely one that you CAN.
Keep working hard at it and it will come, fast or slow.
There's also a lot of competition for getting into the casting scene so if that's your aim it's gonna take a lot of time and effort (though it seems you're off to a great start judging by the amount of replies in these blogs//views count etc!)
I totally agree, anything can happen, and nothing is a lost cause. The only thing that matters is to work hard, and that's what I plan on doing!
That's why I put myself out there and show you guys my thought process and progress, to get feedback and try to improve upon things as quickly as possible. Peer review is an awesome thing! ^^
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
Hahaha you're gonna go faaaaaar in life thinking like that! Do you think Day9 was born with his game analysis? Ofc she can get to his level, sure, it might take 2 years of hard practise but anyone can for sure.
Are you telling me Shaq should have tried to be something he's not? Shaq had a better chance of winning the mega millions lottery than becoming a profesional point guard. He got to where he was by focusing on the skills sets that he had the best chance of succeeding with. ie size, powert, strenth etc. It's like asking Shaq to focus on dribbling.
If you cannot understand what myself and others where trying to say, when we said stick to your strengths then you are beyond hope.
Tara has several things going for her already. If she wants a chance to succeed with this she should focus on these things and other areas that are easier to improve upon. With some minimal practice she could easliy make us forget about her lack of game knowledge during a cast and create something enjoyable to watch. But focus.
RAGEMOAR said it best, listening to a D-/keyboard player analyze a game is painful. If you cut this time and used it on anything else in the world, it would be more enjoyable to watch. I rather listen to you talk about the bathroom products you use during the cast, than trying to analzye the game in any kind of depth. I'm being serious. Keep in depth game analysis to a minimum and fill that time with something creative to keep your viewer entertained. Most people watch a cast for that reason. And there are different ways to achieve this. If they want to improve their SC2 game, they are not going to watch you. They will watch Day9 or any other caster. If you want vierwers please understand this.
It's unrealistic to think Tara is going to become a high end SC2 player or even come close to going over a game like Day9. This reminds me about that "koll" thread years ago. Koll was the exception. Tara is not koll.
I understand she wants to be the best at all aspects of casting, bless her heart. But this won't happen. Focus on the areas that your good at and are easier to improve upon. You can't take the dozens of suggestions in this thread and be the best at all of them.
On August 24 2012 05:40 RAGEMOAR The Pope wrote: I only made it about 10 minutes into the cast, skipped to a bit of lategame.
Your game analysis is very, very poor and in some instances wrong. I would avoid doing it as much as possible.
You speak in short bursts of words without much excitement and long pauses during and in between sentences. Your stats sound like you're reading off of liquipedia.
At the beginning of the game, after player introductions, you should pan around the map a bit and explain the features of each map, to give "newb" viewers a chance to see the entire map.
I would watch the entire game beforehand since you're casting from replays; you miss a lot of the action going on because you don't watch the minimap. Maybe write down what happens so you can adequately cover drops or have a partner move the screen for you.
That is INCREDIBLY stupid to avoid analysis. I only learn from trying, and if I don't commit without being afraid of being wrong, I will never improve.
I also disagree on my lack of emotion. Perhaps I need more, but I improved vastly from cast #1 and I think it's pretty decent burst in the right spots.
I do watch the game beforehand, but not too much. A real casting job would not have this possible, so I want to practice the hard stuff. Game knowledge and player knowledge (especially on Vortix) is lacking, but I'm working on it and it will come with time. To avoid it would put me in a rut and be idiotic...
Good call on the beginning of the game advice, though.
If you want to do analysis, please play a lot more games, watch a lot more tournaments, read forums, and improve your game knowledge. Right now, it's like listening to a third grader lecturing on thermodynamics; you're way out of your league.
I can barely tell the difference from your "exciting" voice to "explanatory" voice. It's flat and boring.
I only recommend watching the game beforehand and taking notes because you're highly inexperienced. You miss a lot of important things. Think of it as going into a game with a general gameplan and your build order on a piece of paper next to you. Right now you aren't good enough to "wing it" like major tournament casters.
This post is actually really good advice.
You could cast a game you KNOW someone good has casted, then watch the videos side by side and understand what the differences are, and importantly how they're doing it so much better. And then practice, practice, practice. Even if that means casting the same game 10x in a row, just so you can get comfortable doing everything 'perfect' in terms of what people enjoy in a cast, then slowly being able to do that consistently to fresh games.
But you really have to target one weakness at a time until it's improved substantially to improve as rapidly as possible (at least this is what i've noticed). Even people we disagree with often have very valid points underneath the stuff we dont like in their words
On August 24 2012 23:44 Kaeru wrote: Nice improvements! I like how you analyse your own casting a lot, you're gonna become great if you keep it up!
On August 24 2012 08:34 FullNatural wrote: It's not stupid to avoid a weakness. Shaq didn't try to play point guard. He dunked the ball like he was supposed to. Stick to your strengths. Your pretty, outgoing etc etc. Focus on those things among others and make them shine. Make people forget that your game insight is below par. Most casters have a select few key things going for them. Your game analysis is never going to be like day9. Don't try to be a jack of all trades.
Hahaha you're gonna go faaaaaar in life thinking like that! Do you think Day9 was born with his game analysis? Ofc she can get to his level, sure, it might take 2 years of hard practise but anyone can for sure.
Are you telling me Shaq should have tried to be something he's not? Shaq had a better chance of winning the mega millions lottery than becoming a profesional point guard. He got to where he was by focusing on the skills sets that he had the best chance of succeeding with. ie size, powert, strenth etc. It's like asking Shaq to focus on dribbling.
If you cannot understand what myself and others where trying to say, when we said stick to your strengths then you are beyond hope.
Tara has several things going for her already. If she wants a chance to succeed with this she should focus on these things and other areas that are easier to improve upon. With some minimal practice she could easliy make us forget about her lack of game knowledge during a cast and create something enjoyable to watch. But focus.
RAGEMOAR said it best, listening to a D-/keyboard player analyze a game is painful. If you cut this time and used it on anything else in the world, it would be more enjoyable to watch. I rather listen to you talk about the bathroom products you use during the cast, than trying to analzye the game in any kind of depth. I'm being serious. Keep in depth game analysis to a minimum and fill that time with something creative to keep your viewer entertained. Most people watch a cast for that reason. And there are different ways to achieve this. If they want to improve their SC2 game, they are not going to watch you. They will watch Day9 or any other caster. If you want vierwers please understand this.
It's unrealistic to think Tara is going to become a high end SC2 player or even come close to going over a game like Day9. This reminds me about that "koll" thread years ago. Koll was the exception. Tara is not koll.
I understand she wants to be the best at all aspects of casting, bless her heart. But this won't happen. Focus on the areas that your good at and are easier to improve upon. You can't take the dozens of suggestions in this thread and be the best at all of them.
Tara, since you singled out my comment from the last casting practice about your laugh at the end of the video, I thought I ought to add a comment to this thread as well.
You have people like in the post I quoted above who are going to tell you that you should focus on your strengths. To this, and other advice (like mine about the laugh XD) your response seems to be "but that's not the way I want to do it". In all honesty, that's fine -- you can cast however you'd like to cast or improve whatever aspects about your casting that you'd like to improve.
But I think that there are maybe two points you are missing when you make such a response.
First of all, the psychology of this website, in general is that of the RTS gamer -- that is: do it as efficiently as possible. You need you buildings down at the right time, you need your scouting in the right place at the right time, you need to learn when, where, why, and how as efficiently as possible to be the best you can and beat your opponent, no matter who it is. So when you ask about your casting practice you have to expect that people are going to look at the level you are at and say "macro better" -- whether that is regarding your game play or your casting. With that in mind, you should go back to some of the comments that you might have disagreed with or found harsh and look at them in that light, in the light of people trying to help you improve "your game" as efficiently as possible. You may find that there is less offensive to them than you first thought.
The second point that I think you are missing is that I think you can "do it the way you want to" and still start your casting career from the standpoint of "sticking to your strengths". What I mean by this is that if start out "sticking to your strengths" you can slowly work your way into becoming a more analytical caster. As an example of this I present to you my favorite caster: NukeTheStars. Nuke, I think, decidedly improved over his career as a Broodwar caster from the standpoint of game analysis. But the main reason I liked to watch Nuke's casts was his personality. You got the feeling of just chilling with a friend talking about the game. There would still be times he would miss a tech building and make a wrong call, even toward the end, but it didn't matter as much by then since most the analysis was pretty good and you weren't necessarily there for the "spot on analysis" anyway.
I think that if you want to be a dedicated analytical caster, you are going to have to put in a lot of work, and eschew some of your "strengths" as it were. This includes things like having a production laugh -- not a fake laugh -- a production laugh. (Have you ever done any acting? Or mimic others, like doing accents? While these things are necessarily "the real you" it's still you putting these things on. It's like when you get all dressed up and make-up'ed for a photo shoot. You still get the credit for it "being you" even if that is not the clothes you would wear -- or laugh you would have -- at your family Thanksgiving dinner.) This also includes things like doing Day[9] does where you watch a game a few times really slowly, write down timings and positions, and figure out for yourself what is actually going on. And only then flipping on the mic once you have an idea of what to look out for and when. Part of the game is predicting what is going to happen ahead of time and that certainly helps when doing a cast. Until you get better at knowing when to flip to what and what to look out for in the moment and while it happens live, you can help train yourself to know what to look out for by doing your homework beforehand.
On the other hand, if you really just want to play it natural and do the kind of thing where you really want your raw personality and mannerisms to show through (and not put on a production laugh), you might consider trying to go more the route of NukeTheStars where you do a bit of the "other stuff" like chatting about random stuff going on in the scene, taking predicition, discussing rvialries, talking about your pet tarantula, etc. You don't have to "talk about the bathroom products you use" -- but you could! Like NukeTheStars, you could be "the guy you watch Starcraft with", only with you it would be more like "the girl next door". I mean, this is just a guess, but I would think there are a lot of guys out there who think it's awesome that "that hot chick likes video games", and I think you know this. Why wouldn't you want to use that as a standpoint from which to springboard into a better analytical caster?
I guess the point I'm trying to make is like others have said using other words, you can't have it all at the same time. You can either focus on improving your analysis, to which you ought to tone down the personality (otherwise you make people think you just sound awkward or unprofessional), or you play up the personality and work on the analysis slowly as you go (maybe watch the game before hand, write down 3-5 major points to discuss during the cast, and make sure they are spot on -- maybe find someone to bounce your analysis off of or watch someone else's cast of the same game as was mentioned). If you try to do both too quickly with proficiency, you are going to get a lot more advice posts on how to improve.
I do think you did a better job in this cast with some of the presentational things like using filler words less often and being more confident when you were speaking. I think your awareness of the kinds of these issues will help you improve in these areas as you continue practicing. But as Starcraft is a game of decisions, and trying to make the right decision at the right time, I think you need to do some analysis of yourself and determine which direction you really want to go in. I would suggest you watch some NukeTheStars -- maybe some of his early games, and some of the games from this past OSL to get a feel for his style and also how he improved his analysis over time. You also might want to try this with a caster like Husky who is in some ways similar to Nuke in the way he casts; watch some games from the beta and then from his more recent stock.
Whichever you decide upon, I think you should seriously consider waiting to do more totally live casting until you are more accustomed to casting in general and do some prep beforehand each time. If you go with hardcore analytical casting, this will be essential; if you go with personality casting with slow analytical improvements, it will still help you a lot to get comfortable. I really wish you luck with this and hope to see some good improvement from you over the next few months.
If i had to categorize you as a caster id put you with husky. You can see the passion when something happens but seem to stumble through the filler. DJ wheat for instance has some meh filler but during big engagements he goes crazy and reminds me why i like him as a duo caster.
Some big difference between your videos of you just talking and the 'filler'. Even listening to the beginning of casting practice #2 if you could keep that energy in the cast it would be amazing.
Good to see you still working hard and we can all see the improvement keep it up
On August 29 2012 16:06 TheGreenMachine wrote: good improvement! :D
If i had to categorize you as a caster id put you with husky. You can see the passion when something happens but seem to stumble through the filler. DJ wheat for instance has some meh filler but during big engagements he goes crazy and reminds me why i like him as a duo caster.
Some big difference between your videos of you just talking and the 'filler'. Even listening to the beginning of casting practice #2 if you could keep that energy in the cast it would be amazing.
Good to see you still working hard and we can all see the improvement keep it up
Interesting...
Thanks for the support! I'll work on my enthusiasm even more in the next one! ^^
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
High isn't as relative as you say it is. No, Artosis wasn't a godly korean killing bw player. He still played competitively and is high masters on korean ladder. Apollo is a high masters random player, Day9 is (according to him) a gm level player. Theres a massive difference between their level of play and hers (gold league??).The reason they can successfully analyze games is because they fundamentally understand the game at a high level because they play on it. TB and DJWheat understand they arent amazing at sc2 and they fill a different role because of it.
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
High isn't as relative as you say it is. No, Artosis wasn't a godly korean killing bw player. He still played competitively and is high masters on korean ladder. Apollo is a high masters random player, Day9 is (according to him) a gm level player. Theres a massive difference between their level of play and hers (gold league??).The reason they can successfully analyze games is because they fundamentally understand the game at a high level because they play on it. TB and DJWheat understand they arent amazing at sc2 and they fill a different role because of it.
It can be done, and I don't care to listen to anyone else who says differently.
I am simply out of practice, left handed, and just need to buckle down and focus on speech, playing, and a little more knowledge. IMO, my knowledge outmatches my league. When I watch a game, I see so many things that I cannot possible imagine to see while playing, all of this comes with practice.
All of that is irrelevant, though. I think anyone who trains as hard as a pro can get good enough to cast, at the VERY least, in a couple year if not much sooner. I have years... I'm only 22! Saying it can't be done is just demeaning to yourself, the human brain and race as a whole, and me.
Besides, I could be so much more than a good host or the face of a company, and the thought of accomplishing something mentally challenging like that is what drives me! RAWR!
ps. When I do, I am totally buying a shirt that says "All this, and I can cast!" UNS UNS UNS!
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
High isn't as relative as you say it is. No, Artosis wasn't a godly korean killing bw player. He still played competitively and is high masters on korean ladder. Apollo is a high masters random player, Day9 is (according to him) a gm level player. Theres a massive difference between their level of play and hers (gold league??).The reason they can successfully analyze games is because they fundamentally understand the game at a high level because they play on it. TB and DJWheat understand they arent amazing at sc2 and they fill a different role because of it.
Since when was Artosis high masters on KR (unless you mean in the very first few months when everyone was bad). Because I played even back in season 1, when he was high masters NA and I was still a bit higher than him (I was ~3860 so I assume he was around that too). And I don't consider myself to be high masters capable, neither then, now, or ever so far on KR. Well, maybe back in season 1 since everyone was bad.
And actually I assumed you were talking about mid-high masters level of analysis, with the judgement being using NA players. I think that level can be reached in a few months if you spend a lot of time on it and are smart. Might not be able to play at that level that fast unless gifted, but analysis is a different thing. It's just learning a lot of heuristics. You have more of a time delay cushion when recognizing it during analysis than during playing. Furthermore you can focus on the analysis and not worry about the execution, so it's not a big problem if it's not a reflexive decision yet - so you can come to the right decision in decent time, but if it were in game you'd have been fucked cause you were too slow at coming up with the solution etc.
Of course I also stated that doing it while casting requires some additional practice, because casting + analysis is multitasking, though not as dexterously demanding as playing while analysing if you're not 100% certain with the analysis.
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
Artosis had one of the best understandings of the opening game(back in bw), he's also been around forever so he's has so much experience, u could show him a replay and have him only look at the mini map, and he could tell u what builds the players were doing and roughly how many units they would have at each point in time (well not mid-late game) yeah his analytical eye is what makes him so great edit: i remember day[9] saying this when he was doing he's bw dailys, but enough of that. Tara if this is what u want than go for it and let nothing hold u back, u have a really good mind set atm for getting better. If u really want to get better and u put in the time and effort than who are we to tell u that u shouldnt. Good luck
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
Artosis had one of the best understandings of the opening game, he's also been around forever so he's has so much experience, u could show him a replay and have him only look at the mini map, and he could tell u what builds the players were doing and roughly how many units they would have at each point in time (well not mid-late game) yeah his analytical eye is what makes him so great
You realize any non-cheesing-only high master on NA can tell you the exact same thing. I think you overrate his casting because of your personal lack of knowledge. I thought the dude who had 60apm was supergosu in highschool.
I watched this on mute, but it looks like the observing part (camera control) needs a little bit of work. I'm not sure exactly how to give you advice on how to fix this, but don't drag the screen around quite so much. Keep at it! Casting is hard.
On August 26 2012 02:08 rogzardo wrote: I'll tune into this girl analzying sc2 the same day I watch a video of day9 pole dancing.
hahahahahah oh fuck my sides.
Going to be completely honest: you doing this probably isn't going to work unless you significantly improve at sc2. Currently your casting is just saying whats happening. You can't analyze because unlike apollo, day9, artosis, etc you do not/ have not played at a high level. Playing at a level that would let you analyze like that would probably take years. I think you would be much better off doing hosting like anna prosser or the GVG girl or whatever.
"High" is relative. One could argue that Artosis' playing skill was never really high, not very recently anyways. Heck, even in the last few years of BW did Artosis ever break B ranks? Because I don't recall him as being a top foreigner in the later years of BW.
What he does have is an analytical eye. That can be trained faster than both the eyes, hands, and mind together. Tbh, I think the analytical skills I could develop in someone in a few months. Translating it to casting is harder. For instance I am so much more of a derp if I am talking while analyzing.
And then after that it requires watching a lot of really top level games of all sorts of styles to keep current and feed your mind to develop even more heuristics and so on (so tag on another time sink at the end of those few months). But really it is a matter of dedication and is not on the order of years I think. Translating it to good casting as well, especially solo casting, sure. Would definitely take a lot longer.
High isn't as relative as you say it is. No, Artosis wasn't a godly korean killing bw player. He still played competitively and is high masters on korean ladder. Apollo is a high masters random player, Day9 is (according to him) a gm level player. Theres a massive difference between their level of play and hers (gold league??).The reason they can successfully analyze games is because they fundamentally understand the game at a high level because they play on it. TB and DJWheat understand they arent amazing at sc2 and they fill a different role because of it.
Since when was Artosis high masters on KR (unless you mean in the very first few months when everyone was bad). Because I played even back in season 1, when he was high masters NA and I was still a bit higher than him (I was ~3860 so I assume he was around that too). And I don't consider myself to be high masters capable, neither then, now, or ever so far on KR. Well, maybe back in season 1 since everyone was bad.
And actually I assumed you were talking about mid-high masters level of analysis, with the judgement being using NA players. I think that level can be reached in a few months if you spend a lot of time on it and are smart. Might not be able to play at that level that fast unless gifted, but analysis is a different thing. It's just learning a lot of heuristics. You have more of a time delay cushion when recognizing it during analysis than during playing. Furthermore you can focus on the analysis and not worry about the execution, so it's not a big problem if it's not a reflexive decision yet - so you can come to the right decision in decent time, but if it were in game you'd have been fucked cause you were too slow at coming up with the solution etc.
Of course I also stated that doing it while casting requires some additional practice, because casting + analysis is multitasking, though not as dexterously demanding as playing while analysing if you're not 100% certain with the analysis.
diamond was the highest during the first money. It's not that everyone was bad, but the races weren't close to being balanced. If I remember right, artosis was zerg, and fruitdealer's win was complete luck.
EPT
