Goes Down Why? What does this even mean? I can understand using it to signify creating buildings ("With the Stargate complete we now see that the Fleet Beacon goes down, signifying Carriers"), but why things dying? There's so many better descriptive words to use other than "goes down", but still you hear it used about 100 times a commentary, and often in rapid succession. Actually I hate myself for using this term, and every time I feel myself about to say it I consciously hold it back because it's just bad.
Push Push is synonymous for leapfrogging. That's how it originated and that's how it's always been used. The standard was the Tank push, and we all know how that looks. You can Tank push, because you siege Tanks and then leapfrog them forward. You can Cannon push, because you build them in a successive fashion. You can Lurker push. You cannot however, Zealot/Archon push. That isn't a push, it's just an attack. So why do I hear about Hydra/Ling pushes? Why is someone doing a Marine push? They aren't! Stop saying it!
Barrack It's not a word. It's Barracks. Yes, even if there's only one of them.
Irradiate It's not irridate.
Stasis It's not status.
Timing Attack Chances are it's not a timing attack, it's just an attack. There aren't 20 minute ZvT timing attacks, for example. Timing attacks are very specifically designed to kill specific builds when they are their weakest. The +1 2 Archon and Zealot attack is a timing attack. Moving out after you research Psionic Storm is not a timing attack.
Do (verb); Is (verb)ing I'm not sure why people do this, but it's so annoying.
Instead of saying the perfect sentence "We see that he is making many units", commentators recently are saying "We do see that he is making many units." I suppose this would make sense if the preceding thought was "Is he making a lot of units?" but it never is, that "do" just comes out of nowhere as if to confirm some imaginary suspicion.
Similarly, instead of "We see Nony is making quite a few phoenixes" we have "We are seeing that Nony is making quite a few phoenixes." This may be grammatically correct, but changing everything into the is/are ___ing form makes it sound really awkward.
Protoss Player Lately commentators are saying "The Protoss player is moving in now!" instead of his ID. I really don't like that and it makes it seem like they aren't aware of who is actually playing.
Verb/Noun Confusion Harass is a verb. Harassment is a noun. Expand is a verb. Expansion is a noun.
I'd like to hear which catchphrases bother you, specifically so I can look over the list and improve.
i couldn't agree more about the retarded use of push to shit like moving out with archons and zlots. i don't remember when it first cropped up, but i think i first saw it in TL LR threads.
Not really on topic but last cast you said "irregardless" and it drove me insane
Calling every offensive protoss move involving dragoons a bulldog, and then not even knowing the origin of the term (pretty much directed at tasteless but a lot of the unknown casters are guilty as well)
Some casters try to say the player who leaves the game "tapped out" which makes no sense at all. An opponent "typing out" makes sense, if he types GG and leaves it is kind of a unique way of saying he left the game.
But most of all pretty every single caster in the SC community needs to broaden their spoken vocabulary, they use the same descriptive terms every time for every event. I won't say names cause this isn't a critique caster x and y thread it's a general one, some are more guilty than others, but almost none seem to make any effort to vary the way they describe things occurring.
On March 14 2009 08:14 floor exercise wrote: Some casters try to say the player who leaves the game "tapped out" which makes no sense at all. An opponent "typing out" makes sense, if he types GG and leaves it is kind of a unique way of saying he left the game.
Not sure if you know this, but this originated from wrestling I think where if you're in a submission, you tap the floor (tap out) and lose the match, in other words surrender, in other words "gg-ing".
I think saying "goes down" when referring to buildings dying as well is ok, but saying it for units dying is pushing it.
But the thing that drives me crazy while watching these things, is when someone will say something like, "This is gonna be a macro game" or "expect a long game here", if the openings are even the slightest bit economical. As if there is no possible way either of them could end the game in under 10 minutes if someone opened if zerg opens 12hatch vs 1rax cc.
Pointing out colors in non-mirror matchups is odd too.
On March 14 2009 08:14 floor exercise wrote: Some casters try to say the player who leaves the game "tapped out" which makes no sense at all. An opponent "typing out" makes sense, if he types GG and leaves it is kind of a unique way of saying he left the game.
Not sure if you know this, but this originated from wrestling I think where if you're in a submission, you tap the floor (tap out) and lose the match, in other words surrender, in other words "gg-ing".
Yeah I'm aware I just think it sounds really dumb when applied to a video game.
On March 14 2009 08:14 floor exercise wrote: Some casters try to say the player who leaves the game "tapped out" which makes no sense at all. An opponent "typing out" makes sense, if he types GG and leaves it is kind of a unique way of saying he left the game.
Not sure if you know this, but this originated from wrestling I think where if you're in a submission, you tap the floor (tap out) and lose the match, in other words surrender, in other words "gg-ing".
I always thought it was just people who misheard when they first heard someone say "typing out".
On March 14 2009 08:13 s.a.y wrote: i dislike watching By.Stylish VODs where he keeps yawning and telling he just woke up or he is about to go to bed.
And people over using the term "Bisu Build".
thats harsh! i don't say that in every vod! anyway you're probably a biased zergplayer^^ my vods aren't meant to be funny, only instructional. But whatever..
anyway i kind of disagree with the whole "push" thing.. for example "timing push" is usually applied when terran moves out and sieges up at protoss' third, and doesn't really have to include any leapfrogging..
On March 14 2009 08:40 Chill wrote: Have you ever seen someone drive straight up to their target and siege? No? That's why it's a push.
well in this example its pretty common that terran moves out as far as he can and when protoss decides to attack you siege up and there is a big clash, if you come out on top you just unsiege and run him over. Doesn't have to involve any leapfrogging.. I think in general the expression is a little more loose nowadays. Doesn't really bother me but i get your point..
You move out or you push out is more or less the same thing now as long as there are units outside your base, maybe i dont think about it that much because english isn't my first language..
I agree to an extent, but I think its important to remember a few things here:
First of all, a ton of these commentators are speaking english as a 2nd language. Barrack/Barracks, and mispronouncing some words, aren't that big of a deal. However, they should look into these if they plan on doing commentary.
I also really disagree on the push thing. There's obviously a portion of the community which finds the usage you described quite acceptable. Words, much like starcraft strategies, evolve over time.
The timing attack usage is a pet peave of mine too though. I find it hilarious when two 200/200 armies meet, and the commentator says, "oh, player A is going for a timing attack here." Please haha
calling every bridge a funnel, or implying it acts as one can get annoying.
the thing that's annoying more than anything, is when a commentator says the same thing over and over again, every single game. it's good to provide information to beginners, but have new stuff prepared to say once in a while.
somthing that kind of anoyed me when you casted tha last liquibition was every time you said somthing like "it's everything but over" when strelok failed a chees strategy isn't the game veary much over at that point? you used this phrase simular ways alot during the whole series and I never realy got it... Or am I totaly mising somthing here?
I agree with all of those, but another pet peeve I have (because I'm a mathematician) is the use of the word "exponential". Like "push" common (mis-)usage of the word has kind of degraded its meaning.
On March 14 2009 09:00 Zerum wrote: somthing that kind of anoyed me when you casted tha last liquibition was every time you said somthing like "it's everything but over" when strelok failed a chees strategy isn't the game veary much over at that point? you used this phrase simular ways alot during the whole series and I never realy got it... Or am I totaly mising somthing here?
That's what "it's all but over" means. The game is very much decided but it just hasn't ended yet.
Actually, barrack is a word... however, it is mostly used in it's plural form, and should be used that way.
Annoying catchphrases include - mispronunciations of "irradiate" and "stasis", excessive use of the phrases "agree completely", "indeed", "concur" (in dual commentary)
On March 14 2009 07:46 wrags wrote: when people say sc-ore-j or zee-lot
I hate it when people say zeh-luht (even though it's the correct pronunciation) cause it just seems wrong and people sound like faggots when they say the word, no offense to anyone
yes im so happy someone came out and said this. The status instead of stasis thing has pissed me off for so long. A stasis field makes sense, a status field does not. Another thing that pisses me off is when someone commits to an attack and the commentator says there going "all in" when they are not actually going all in at all.
Timing Attack Chances are it's not a timing attack, it's just an attack. There aren't 20 minute ZvT timing attacks, for example. Timing attacks are very specifically designed to kill specific builds when they are their weakest. The +1 2 Archon and Zealot attack is a timing attack. Moving out after you research Psionic Storm is not a timing attack.
Thankyou. I'm not the most adept of players but it has always annoyed me when people keep saying it's a <unit combo> timing attack every time a player moves some units around.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any others, would have to watch a few vods again.
Hmm, I think that "goes down" is much more suitable for something being destroyed, as in "tear down", because... well, if you are building something, it intuitevely goes up from the ground, why would it go down?
I think that it sounds weird for most people whose first language is not English.
I get annoyed when I feel like the commentator is making stuff up about the game rather then a mispronunciation or something. Sometimes I feel like certain commentators aren't really paying enough attention to the game and so just make up details like build orders so it sounds like they are.
Along these lines...
Quick X or Fast Y is overused a lot. Unless the commentator actually has something to back it up like "look at how few SCVs" they often seem to just throw it out there. Unless of course it's part of a known phrase like "fast expand."
Retroactive, questionably accurate "known for" attributions. Sometimes it seems like commentators just want to say "and this kind of harass is what player Y is known for" because it sounds like they know what they are talking about. If he was really known for it they should would have brought it up during the first 3 minutes.
Pretending the game isn't over. Perhaps the commentator is trying to "keep it interesting" but I find it really annoying when they seem to be pretending a player still has a chance.
Misc stuff:
Hero blah blah. Ok sometimes it's appropriate but not every game needs a hero and it just seems stupid when applied to things like mines and scarabs. And it usually works best when a unit survives for a ridiculously long time while getting lots of kills.
Tech switches vs Tech Progression vs unit composition adjustment. There is a difference.
On March 14 2009 10:17 gotwater wrote: starcraft = energy not mana
haha yeah if someone says that a vessel does not have enough mana I always have to image gandalf with his wizard robe and long white beard standing in the vessel casting spells upon the zerg army.
progamer's name and ID mispronounced. (i.e. Jay Dong (similar in pronunciation to wrong, or long) instead of Jae (same pronunciation as the je in jet) Dong (how you're supposed to say it in korean. i can't think of an example atm)
I realize that this is an english speaking site, but it just really annoys me. people mispronouncing Jaedong pissed me off really badly until i got somewhat used to it. it still bothers me
I hate it when people get building names wrong over and over again. Robotics Bay (as in Robotics Facility) is a good example of this -_-a
I actually think 'goes down' when referring to a dying building is perfectly okay (a destroyed building literally falls over/down) but yeah it probably gets overused.
On March 14 2009 07:46 wrags wrote: when people say sc-ore-j or zee-lot
I hate it when people say zeh-luht (even though it's the correct pronunciation) cause it just seems wrong and people sound like faggots when they say the word, no offense to anyone
On March 14 2009 11:36 cgrinker wrote: Come on now, we've all been playing this game since we were like 10. Don't tell me that you can pronounce every Pokemon's name correctly either
Haha so not true (well true for many people). I was like 19 o.O
haha yeah if someone says that a vessel does not have enough mana I always have to image gandalf with his wizard robe and long white beard standing in the vessel casting spells upon the zerg army.
Now that's what I'm gonna see every time I see a Science Vessel floating around O_O
Push Push is synonymous for leapfrogging. That's how it originated and that's how it's always been used. The standard was the Tank push, and we all know how that looks. You can Tank push, because you siege Tanks and then leapfrog them forward. You can Cannon push, because you build them in a successive fashion. You can Lurker push. You cannot however, Zealot/Archon push. That isn't a push, it's just an attack. So why do I hear about Hydra/Ling pushes? Why is someone doing a Marine push? They aren't! Stop saying it!
YES!!! YES!! YEESS!!!
Everytime I hear that over and over and I'm getting so damn annoyed by it! A "push" is leapfrogging I guess, but for me it's pushing = tank push.
Another thing I just hate is "timing attack/push", lately every single noob has started using the term for everything! "Help me stop protoss timing attack", "How to stop mutalisk timing attack??", "Terran timing attack too strong".
Timing is something for very high level players! If you're low level - don't care, just follow a bo and play.
I guess I'm just being arrogant but still I had to say it! ^^
Sniped I hear a lot of people say "Wow! That was unbelievable micro! He just sniped all _____'s HT's!" Uhh wtf? No he didn't.... he just picked them off when the toss was retreating from the battle.
I would consider stacked muta's targeting HT's from a toss army sniping, because it is a swift 1 hit kill, or if if a terran in TvP 1 hit an arbiter with his golies while running awayinstead of the zeals/goons. Also a long distance yamato gun on a defiler would be considered a snipe IMO as well.
Ex. You are playing halo, you see the opponent across the room with a sniper, you have a pistol of some sort and charge at him. He gets a headshot while you are just about to kill him, THAT IS NOT A SNIPE.
Chasing something down is not sniping, targeting dragoons in TvP instead of zeals is not sniping, microing mnm against the lurkers is not sniping, making your group of carriers all target a single turret is not sniping.
Sniping would be more like a swift 1 hit kill that the opponent did not see coming,.
Is it me or do commentators often get certain phrases in their head which they really like to overuse? One instance that comes to mind is tasteless who really loves to say "bear in mind" 10 times in a row. I prefer a more diverse use of language if possible.
Oh and one thing I'm not nearly seeing enough of: Do your homework. Get some interesting stats or whatever to talk about during the first few minutes. Some relevant background or map info on the player would be nice instead of some irrelevant filler material. This is the kind of stuff that seperates you from the rest.
You honestly don't think there is a problem with units not being called by their actual name in commentating for professional Starcraft? Maybe it's just me... Seriously, it's not a long enough word where it needs to be abbreviated or anything. That's like called marines "gunners" and firebats "flamethrowers". Just doesn't work that well in the eyes of most people.
i don't like diggity's catchphrase; "wow", or how he says "micromanagement" and "macromanagement" instead of simple macro/micro. its not too bad but it comes off as trying hard to be technical and professional.
Looking at the sc2gg commentarys, I've kinda figured it out.
The first attack with less than one controll group, but more than 2 units, in the early game, its a timing push, even if its 4 goons trying to wear down the first terran PUSH. "Looks like bisu is doing a 4 goon with range timing attack, and at the SAAAAAAAAAME TIIIIME...AT THE SAAAAME --- TIIIIMMMEEEE, flash is doing a 4 marine, 2 tank-vulture timing attack"
The first attack with 1 controll group or more, its the <insert names of units>-timing attack. "Bisu is doing a speedlot,goon,high templar-timing attack up saviors main now...AND AT THE SAMMMMMME TIIIIIIIME..etcetc"
As the game goes on, each opponent are "replenishing their armies".
I disagree about the usage of the word push though. Push has a different meaning in Starcraft? If anything, using the term push for goon/zeals or hydras or whatever makes more sense than for tanks...
The Greek Phalanx is a good example of strategic pushing. Two phalanxes would go head to head and...push. Literally. You didn't charge for a bit... Stop... Shield up... Leapfrog ahead some more... Turtle up again. You pushed. You pushed until one of the lines faltered, thus breaking the formation, thus opening the path to victory.
Very similar to how a player will engage his opponents units and "push" them back into their main/expansion or what have you.
Granted its a pretty literal take on the word, but it just never bothered me personally.
Technical This is a very technical build/map/strategy/game/rush etcetc. Apparently anything can be technical and I'm not even positive what it means other than very precise...
I heard that Tasteless incorrectly labels a lot of things as "hold position micro" when the actual tactic does not involve the use of hold position. As in the case of Flash's tactic to have Goliaths take down Interceptors instead of Carriers.
Can someone with a better knowledge of the game confirm/deny this for me?
On March 15 2009 06:54 Kyo Yuy wrote: I heard that Tasteless incorrectly labels a lot of things as "hold position micro" when the actual tactic does not involve the use of hold position. As in the case of Flash's tactic to have Goliaths take down Interceptors instead of Carriers.
Can someone with a better knowledge of the game confirm/deny this for me?
I'm not sure but when you use hold position with goliaths often they will not attack at all. Attack moving is much more efficient against interceptors.
I can certainly appreciate wanting to better your own commentary, but I think a lot of people in this thread have overly trivial/invalid complaints.
These people are doing something in their free time for themselves and others, if they pronounce something differently than you (perhaps cause its the 'proper' way in their language or other simmilar reasons) or call something by the wrong name in the midst of things I just really think its selfish to complain about this..
Now if they are getting paid for commentary or are doing it for major community events (tsl, ect) than I can understand holding people to a higher standard.
quit letting stupid little shit in life bother you or watch the god damn korean version.
i hate it when commentators analyze that the game is over before a tactic has come to fruition, or if someone is behind(possibly very behind) making an attempt at picking up slack, and they say "gg will come after this attack fails" or similar things.
it sucks the goddamn energy out of the game.
[edit] also a lot of Uhhhhhs bother me, i would honestly prefer a brief moment of silence!
On March 18 2009 06:24 Duke wrote: i hate it when commentators analyze that the game is over before a tactic has come to fruition, or if someone is behind(possibly very behind) making an attempt at picking up slack, and they say "gg will come after this attack fails" or similar things.
it sucks the goddamn energy out of the game.
[edit] also a lot of Uhhhhhs bother me, i would honestly prefer a brief moment of silence!
me too... I also hate it when they pronouce Zi Lat, instead of Zee Lot
The thing that has been bothering me as of late is saying someone "lived" an attack. For example:
"Oh man, that attack did a lot of damage. He won't live this next attack." "He'll live this attack" etc.
Seems like it's being used in place of "survive" or something. I have no idea where this came from but I've been hearing it more often and it bugs me. If there is some logical explanation I'd like to hear it.
Chill, if you or anyone you know ever says, f91 is the only zerg who ever 9 scouts again, I will nuke your house. Come on man, its so common now in pro leagues. So yeah, never again.. never again..
On March 18 2009 11:13 Excello.ChOseN wrote: Chill, if you or anyone you know ever says, f91 is the only zerg who ever 9 scouts again, I will nuke your house. Come on man, its so common now in pro leagues. So yeah, never again.. never again..
I don't know if it was a one off thing, but in one video with Cholera and Rise, Rise used the phrase ''The fact of the matter is'' at least 20 times. It was sooo annoying.
#3 when a build/strat/phrase gets said in a popular game and it gets overused to death in to the point of it being meaningless;
ie: 10/15 gate If you would have said 10/15 gate before the nony courage vod I bet atleast 75% of youtube commentators wouldn't even know what it is, but now it gets said in like every fucking game "OH I THINK 10/15 GATE WOULD BE A GOOD OPTION" even on maps like destination or neo harmony.
drone drill Ever since the july/best game people constantly constantly refer to drone micro as "drone drilling". If you are 12 hatch vrs 9 pool you dont "drone drill" to defend.
flash build The second anyone sees an armory they immediately just say flash build. What distinguishes flashes build more then anything is the lack of ebay and early third. I hate when someone goes 1 fact -> ebay -> 2nd fact -> armory and people are like "OMG LOKS LIKE HES GUNNA DO THE FLASH BUILD". The concept of getting upgrades in TvP is pretty much coined to flash now...
I guess just any technical comments t trying to make you sound like you know what you are talking about but used out of place and therefore making you look like a total idiot.
#2 julyzerg fat jokes holy god this pisses me off so much. Basically by making a julyzerg fat joke that wasnt remotely funny you are just saying "i am so uneducated about starcraft that I cant even say anything notable about one of the most famous players of all time". Usually followed by a reference to the "drone drill" or osl finals 3:0 because that is the only time they've ever actually watched july
#1 people saying best is good shut the fuck up best is garbage
Tasteless' "Male-Storm" always gets me. Unless Reach is playing, in which case the Dark Archon is so manly that all animals will freeze instinctively in fear of its gaseous biceps.
From the point of view of an amateur "commentator" who casts a ton of games, usually late at night - here's the top three reasons why there's so many of the above problems in our casts:
3) All the commentators who watch most English casts and do dual commentaries end up subconsciously adopting common phrases. Sometimes these are accurate ("5 hatch scourge/hydra" in modern PvZ), other times they're inaccurate ("X timing attack", "Bisu build"), or just random ("brilliant", "Reach is omgmanly", "pandabearguy"). I try to cut out the trite phrases the best I can when I commentate but they slip in there all the time when I get excited.
2) It's harder to tell exactly what's going on in a Korean VOD rather than a replay commentary. You don't have the leisure to look at a certain base layout or attack until you identify what is going on; the observer windows skips around and often is imperfect in catching the action also. Plus, there are cuts to the audience or players' faces in VODs, which means there's less over game to watch and get the best analysis from.
1) We're tired and do a lot of games at once. Usually we try to get out our casts of the Korean games as soon as possible, and when two or more us are available to do them which can mean as many as two Bo7 series in one sitting. I find it hard not to fall into saying the same over-done phrases and opinions about players when we've done a couple of games already. Finally a big problem with finding out a certain player's recent performance is that that TLPD can often lead to spoiling games, so we often have to avoid using it or even cover up part of the screen with one hand to prevent us from seeing how many games were just played (very true for Best of X series or Winners League casts).
Here's a couple of my commentary pet peeves:
Saying a Zerg is going mutalisks in ZvP when they see a spire, especially with a three-hatch opening, without waiting to check if there's a second gas or there's no more hatcheries going up.
Conversely, saying that a Zerg is definitely NOT going to mutalisks when they get a spire, 5 hatcheries, and a hydralisk den. Plenty of players lately (July, Zero, Luxury) have switched into mutalisks after "faking" 5 hatch hydra/scourge opening.
Saying Toss is going Bisu when there's a stargate / templar archives opening. These days, this is almost always just for archon/speedlot rush or standard speedlot/templar push.
Saying a muta harass has done a "ton of damage" when it hasn't. Killing a couple of marines and turrets doesn't count; I think Z really needs 10+ SCV kills if the T is at 2 base to call it a success, especially if Z went 2 hatch.
Saying 12 pool is a big favorite over a 9 pool. (12 hatch beating 12 pool expand I agree with though).
Relying too much on a small statistical bias to say a map favors one race over another, without understanding why it does.
Refraining from saying a pro-gamer played poorly when they did. Obviously they play better than any of us, we should respect their commitment, etc. etc., but it's all relative to their level of competition after all.
On March 18 2009 11:13 Excello.ChOseN wrote: Chill, if you or anyone you know ever says, f91 is the only zerg who ever 9 scouts again, I will nuke your house. Come on man, its so common now in pro leagues. So yeah, never again.. never again..
On March 18 2009 06:24 Duke wrote: i hate it when commentators analyze that the game is over before a tactic has come to fruition, or if someone is behind(possibly very behind) making an attempt at picking up slack, and they say "gg will come after this attack fails" or similar things.
it sucks the goddamn energy out of the game.
[edit] also a lot of Uhhhhhs bother me, i would honestly prefer a brief moment of silence!
me too... I also hate it when they pronouce Zi Lat, instead of Zee Lot
... Zee Lot would be wrong. The zeal in zealot is not pronounced like the the word zeal.
On March 18 2009 11:13 Excello.ChOseN wrote: Chill, if you or anyone you know ever says, f91 is the only zerg who ever 9 scouts again, I will nuke your house. Come on man, its so common now in pro leagues. So yeah, never again.. never again..
Show me examples of ZvT 9 scouting please.
Well, I can remember one recent example.
Anyway, speaking of Moletrap, I do have one problem with a recent commentary he made (not sure which one it was) and that is...FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS SACRED, MAN, DO NOT EAT WHILE COMMENTATING! An occassional sip of a (non-alcoholic) drink is fine if you talk for long periods, but consuming food while commentating causes breaks in the commentary, comes off very unprofesional and is not very entertaining to begin with. Other then that, though, keep up the good work.
Chill, thank you for starting this thread. I have wanted to try my hand at commentating for some time now. If I ever get around to doing it, this thread will certainly be helpful.
Do (verb); Is (verb)ing I'm not sure why people do this, but it's so annoying.
Instead of saying the perfect sentence "We see that he is making many units", commentators recently are saying "We do see that he is making many units." I suppose this would make sense if the preceding thought was "Is he making a lot of units?" but it never is, that "do" just comes out of nowhere as if to confirm some imaginary suspicion.
Similarly, instead of "We see Nony is making quite a few phoenixes" we have "We are seeing that Nony is making quite a few phoenixes." This may be grammatically correct, but changing everything into the is/are ___ing form makes it sound really awkward.
Protoss Player Lately commentators are saying "The Protoss player is moving in now!" instead of his ID. I really don't like that and it makes it seem like they aren't aware of who is actually playing.
Saying the players race instead of their ID always bugs me, I thought I was the only one though. Tasteless does that one a lot (not to say that everyone else doesn't do it as well).
I always found it annoying when commentators said "HUGE HUGE STORMS GOING OFF!!" When the storms killed maybe like a few tanks, or a few hydras. -______-
On April 27 2010 06:11 Chill wrote: I know - he's wrong.
Pretty sure he's joking when he talks about the 24 min. timing push or w/e. He just says that's approximately when Zerg runs out of gas in his nat/main and they can not be content on 4 base.
On April 27 2010 06:11 Chill wrote: I know - he's wrong.
Pretty sure he's joking when he talks about the 24 min. timing push or w/e. He just says that's approximately when Zerg runs out of gas in his nat/main and they can not be content on 4 base.
he's actually not joking at all. he measures the game to that degree of specificity.
What really annoys me is commentators trying to stereotype every game and pretending to cleverly predict what is going to happen when they actually have no clue.
This doesn't apply to chill, artosis, day9 & tasteless. They usually know what is going on and certainly do not pretend to when they aren't sure.
EDIT: Also as Chill wrote, a LOT of commentators like to throw around technical terms without knowing how to use them. (Push, rush, cheese does come to mind, or when I think about it, just about ANY technical term in SC.)
It bothers me when people call everything cute. Like when a player does some cool thing to just rip the opponents natural or uses some psionic ability to smash a whole army.
I'm hearing too much "timing attack" nowadays. Although it's true when a player is being aggressive they sometimes happen to hit a good timing window where their opponent isn't ready. But "timing attack" suggests they planned it ahead when in reality they're just getting lucky.
Or they're responding to what they just saw, which is even less of a "timing" but more of a counter-attack.
I think someone already mentioned this, but Jay Dong is a pornstar. Jaedong is a progamer. Jaedong is not pronounced Jay Dong.
Stating the fucking obvious
Also, quit stating the fucking obvious. I hate it when someone gets a stargate and it starts flickering and the commentator says, "I think he's gonna build air units now."
Actually, I did make fun of that once by seeing my friend go 8 pylon and predicting "That Protoss will get 2 control groups of Zealots and Dragoons and hit him up here in the midgame, after which the Zerg will simulaneously go lurkerling, and the game should be won by the Zerg via ultralisks under dark swarm."
On April 27 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: Do (verb); Is (verb)ing I'm not sure why people do this, but it's so annoying.
Instead of saying the perfect sentence "We see that he is making many units", commentators recently are saying "We do see that he is making many units." I suppose this would make sense if the preceding thought was "Is he making a lot of units?" but it never is, that "do" just comes out of nowhere as if to confirm some imaginary suspicion.
Similarly, instead of "We see Nony is making quite a few phoenixes" we have "We are seeing that Nony is making quite a few phoenixes." This may be grammatically correct, but changing everything into the is/are ___ing form makes it sound really awkward.
"Do" and all conjugates is a complicated auxiliary because it doesn't necessarily specify a mode (i.e. "We saw Nony play SC2" implies that something took place in the past, whereas "We have seen Nony play SC2" implies the past-progressive tense, meaning as of this time of utterance "we have seen" Nony play, giving the statement greater connectivity to the present). Instead, "do" and all conjugates, in the construction you outline - "NP1 do V1 that NP2 V2" (where V2 is in in the present progressive) - acts as affirmative statement, encompassing imperative statements and emphasizing in varyinf degrees the subject of the sentence.
So, for example, in "Mondragon is 6 pooling, and we do see Nony warping in an early gateway," "do" affirms that Nony suspects something aggressive and is responding to it. But I agree it sounds really wordy; I don't think anyone who says that is seeing their words on paper.
For the latter, both statements are technically correct, but it's a matter of how much you want to emphasize the observer. Naturally, the former is a lot less wordy and awkward, making it the optimal statement for an observer to make (IMO IMO).
I actually only caught onto this because I used to watch diggity's youtube channel religiously and he caught himself saying it a lot but i've noticed many many commentators also use the phrase quite often. It doesn't bother me because I'd be SO much worse I think it's entertaining more than anything.
It's funny how I HATED commentary done by husky in sc1 but the HDH invitational totally reversed my opinion of him. I think they have a great synergy and rotate in and out smoothly.
Here is my list that I've heard more and more... and despise
"The Field" - A common term instead of using the map... this isn't football it's starcraft "Throwing Down" - Instead of saying constructing or building, why say throwing down? Mistaking probes, scvs, drones, CCs, Nexus, and Hatcheries all too often
In my opinion a good commentator is someone who keeps a solid flow while they talk (sorry attero), have a soft voice on the ears, and don't use this "commentary slang".
This needs to be stickied or at the very least sent to some commentators, especially the push definition, sometimes when I watch commentaries (for example HDH vods for SC2) I always hear push when they just mean attack.
On March 14 2009 07:44 Chill wrote: Protoss Player Lately commentators are saying "The Protoss player is moving in now!" instead of his ID. I really don't like that and it makes it seem like they aren't aware of who is actually playing.
This is the only one I disagree with. In writing, it's a common technique to say "he" or "Bisu" or "the protoss player" or "Kim Taek Yong" if you have to refer to them multiple times in a fairly short successions. The same can be applied to commentating. Repetition is annoying.
However, if they -only- refer to the player as [insert race name here], then it's just as bad as saying "Bisu" over and over again.
On May 25 2010 02:42 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It bothers me when people call everything cute. Like when a player does some cool thing to just rip the opponents natural or uses some psionic ability to smash a whole army.
On May 25 2010 02:42 FlopTurnReaver wrote: It bothers me when people call everything cute. Like when a player does some cool thing to just rip the opponents natural or uses some psionic ability to smash a whole army.
That's not cute!! It's baller!!
That's funny, because I hate the term 'baller'.
That's even more funny because I hate both cute and baller.
On May 26 2010 04:20 lixlix wrote: but Jaedong does have pornstar balls.
Now that you mention it, I wonder if I can get a porn video at my local Blockbuster (if I don't get too scared from the Jesus Is Watching You sign) about StarCraft starring Lee Jay Dong and his sexylicious mutalisk micro.
Back on topic, if you aren't Dustin Browder, please please PLEASE don't say terrible terrible damage in your commentary. It ruins the line.
On March 14 2009 07:44 Chill wrote: Protoss Player Lately commentators are saying "The Protoss player is moving in now!" instead of his ID. I really don't like that and it makes it seem like they aren't aware of who is actually playing.
This is the only one I disagree with. In writing, it's a common technique to say "he" or "Bisu" or "the protoss player" or "Kim Taek Yong" if you have to refer to them multiple times in a fairly short successions. The same can be applied to commentating. Repetition is annoying.
However, if they -only- refer to the player as [insert race name here], then it's just as bad as saying "Bisu" over and over again.
Yeah, what this guy said. There's no problem with using 'the x player' after you've initially addressed them by name.
On May 25 2010 11:48 DallasTx wrote: When people say Mutie and not Muta. My ragedar goes off the charts.
I find this post to be ironic. You're criticizing someone's word choice and then using your own dumb expression.
What's with "my ragedar goes off the charts"? Is ragedar supposed to be a play on words of radar and rage? The expression "off the charts" is not suitable with radar regardless. Maybe you should say "I become very angry" instead.
On May 25 2010 11:48 DallasTx wrote: When people say Mutie and not Muta. My ragedar goes off the charts.
I find this post to be ironic. You're criticizing someone's word choice and then using your own dumb expression.
What's with "my ragedar goes off the charts"? Is ragedar supposed to be a play on words of radar and rage? The expression "off the charts" is not suitable with radar regardless. Maybe you should say "I become very angry" instead.
On May 25 2010 11:48 DallasTx wrote: When people say Mutie and not Muta. My ragedar goes off the charts.
I find this post to be ironic. You're criticizing someone's word choice and then using your own dumb expression.
What's with "my ragedar goes off the charts"? Is ragedar supposed to be a play on words of radar and rage? The expression "off the charts" is not suitable with radar regardless. Maybe you should say "I become very angry" instead.
I dislike when people are commentating a One on One series, and call the last game an "ace match". The same people have and will be playing the series, so there is no "ace", leave it to team games IMO.
Haha, i agree with all of these things, especially the "we DO see that he's..."
Another thing that's been bugging me lately is when they try to read some deep signficance into trivial things. Like the player shuffles some units around, and they commentator freaks out like "ah clearly he's playing subtle mind games with his opponent! Trying to gain a psychological edge for the next game!" a lot of minor stuff just isn't that important.
To those who complained about the pronunciation of 'scourge' earlier in the thread: I believe either common pronunciation is considered valid, as documented by Merriam Webster Online.
On May 25 2010 11:48 DallasTx wrote: When people say Mutie and not Muta. My ragedar goes off the charts.
I find this post to be ironic. You're criticizing someone's word choice and then using your own dumb expression.
What's with "my ragedar goes off the charts"? Is ragedar supposed to be a play on words of radar and rage? The expression "off the charts" is not suitable with radar regardless. Maybe you should say "I become very angry" instead.
On June 14 2010 14:54 IdrA wrote: people should be grateful for annoying phrases, they distract you from their strategical analysis.
I'd say a bunch of examples here but I'm afraid I'd get flamed by hordes of fanboys who only found out about TL through those people and their terrible "analysis."
While I agree with most things, there are details not considered, which make some of the phrases usable beyond the described limitations.
Push Push is synonymous for leapfrogging. That's how it originated and that's how it's always been used. The standard was the Tank push, and we all know how that looks. You can Tank push, because you siege Tanks and then leapfrog them forward. You can Cannon push, because you build them in a successive fashion. You can Lurker push. You cannot however, Zealot/Archon push. That isn't a push, it's just an attack. So why do I hear about Hydra/Ling pushes? Why is someone doing a Marine push? They aren't! Stop saying it!
There can be leapfrog effect with any attacking unit composition - if you "dance" back and forth, for example. The idea of push is similar to American Football or Rugby that you manage to get your opponent's forces to retreat a bit, or at least deny them advancing. It is attack, indeed, and the purpose of the attack is to push.
Timing Attack Chances are it's not a timing attack, it's just an attack. There aren't 20 minute ZvT timing attacks, for example. Timing attacks are very specifically designed to kill specific builds when they are their weakest. The +1 2 Archon and Zealot attack is a timing attack. Moving out after you research Psionic Storm is not a timing attack.
Sounds like only should count precisely calculated build orders in advance, as timing attacks. But there are some calculated attacks on the fly, in which also units move in time to reach the opponent just when some upgrade is ready. This should be called timing attack too, and it can happen at any stage in the game. . . . Here are some of my disfavored: - "huge blunder", commentators use it excessively, for no good reason. - "is sitting on <resources, bases etc>", gives incorrect impression that the player is not doing anything, while he has been busy with actions he finds more important - "raped", it's not a laughing matter, and should not be used so frivolously - "Metropolis / Metapolis / Melopolis / Metopolis..", it's Metalopolis, please - "ragequit", jumping to conclusions, maybe they are simply bored of saying gg all the time for years, and what's the point in this anyway - "cheese", "bm" in general, people use them really for any type of behavior they personally dislike; it's almost "bm" to win the game / may add more some other time /
As much as you guys complain, you could have it worse, you could be a tournament follower of the Super Smash game scene. Even the WORST commentators from Starcraft are ten times as professional as the ones our community think are the best. In fact most commentators for fighting games are idiots (yipes anyone? reminds me of the background voice in Idiocracy that would announce the president coming out).
Main thing that bothers me with commentators is how often they misspeak. For example, they will say the wrong player's name when referring to something the other players is doing/did. Or they will say the wrong word when referring to something in the game. Jerry is now researching storm for his zealots at his warp gate. It's pretty clear most of the time that they are thinking about the last or next thing they are going to say/said and subconsciously speaking in some sort of panic to fill the air with words constantly or something. 90% of commentators (even the most loved ones) have this problem and it really irks me above all other things.
Using the word push is a really close second though. God damn that is annoying to me.
I plan to do some commentaries and someone please shoot me in the face if I do any of this shit.
edit- I don't really have a problem with 'throwing down' or 'goes down' in any context. Although it may be overused, then like all things, that is a problem.
On July 20 2010 16:53 Aberu wrote: As much as you guys complain, you could have it worse, you could be a tournament follower of the Super Smash game scene. Even the WORST commentators from Starcraft are ten times as professional as the ones our community think are the best. In fact most commentators for fighting games are idiots (yipes anyone? reminds me of the background voice in Idiocracy that would announce the president coming out).
I'm going to do a troll commentary using all the bad things laid out in this thread as a guide. The funny part about it though is that it won't sound any different than the others.
On July 20 2010 16:53 Aberu wrote: As much as you guys complain, you could have it worse, you could be a tournament follower of the Super Smash game scene. Even the WORST commentators from Starcraft are ten times as professional as the ones our community think are the best. In fact most commentators for fighting games are idiots (yipes anyone? reminds me of the background voice in Idiocracy that would announce the president coming out).
Rockefeller from 3S & Family Fun is my favourite commentator of any genre. I used to consciously tried to emulate his style.
On July 20 2010 16:53 Aberu wrote: As much as you guys complain, you could have it worse, you could be a tournament follower of the Super Smash game scene. Even the WORST commentators from Starcraft are ten times as professional as the ones our community think are the best. In fact most commentators for fighting games are idiots (yipes anyone? reminds me of the background voice in Idiocracy that would announce the president coming out).
hey u sir are extremely wrong yipes can be both insightful and extremely entertaining if he so chooses
On July 20 2010 16:53 Aberu wrote: As much as you guys complain, you could have it worse, you could be a tournament follower of the Super Smash game scene. Even the WORST commentators from Starcraft are ten times as professional as the ones our community think are the best. In fact most commentators for fighting games are idiots (yipes anyone? reminds me of the background voice in Idiocracy that would announce the president coming out).
Rockefeller from 3S & Family Fun is my favourite commentator of any genre. I used to consciously tried to emulate his style.
loooool FFA commentary guys so goooooood personal favs + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAus6r3JY2c
last one is done my dirty sanchez and ray ramos(sp) sanchez is even funny commentating on shit he doesnt even know + Show Spoiler +
what about "warp gate" push... since.. they are now able to warp shit in the front line with each "leap" of a pylons as the protoss now tend to build the "yellow brick road" of pylons toward the base of their opponents...
i'm not sure this is relevant to catchphrases, but something that always annoys me is how commentators will try to describe
EXACTLYEVERYTHINGTHATISHAPPENINGASFASTASTHEYCAN
i don't know korean at all, but a lot of the time it seems like the korean commentators just yell OOOOOOHHH when something exciting/fast paced is going on, then comment on what is going on after rather than play-by-play. i think a good example of blending play-by-play and analysis is watching 2GD/joe do quake commentary
On March 14 2009 07:44 Chill wrote: Goes Down Why? What does this even mean? I can understand using it to signify creating buildings ("With the Stargate complete we now see that the Fleet Beacon goes down, signifying Carriers"), but why things dying? There's so many better descriptive words to use other than "goes down", but still you hear it used about 100 times a commentary, and often in rapid succession. Actually I hate myself for using this term, and every time I feel myself about to say it I consciously hold it back because it's just bad.
Maybe by "goes down" they mean the Fleet Beacon can burrow
I don't think I'm good enough at SC to notice a lot of the mistakes being made, but the things you pointed out do bother me. Improper English bothers me the most, but I don't get too upset because I'm pretty understanding of imperfect English
So it's a word of its own AND short for something else? I guess you have to use context to judge? That's so weird. I always thought proxy was its own word.
Proximity 1480, from M.Fr. proximité "nearness" (14c.), from L. proximitatem (nom. proximitas ) "nearness, vicinity," from proximus "nearest," superlative of prope "near." Proximal is first recorded 1727.
Proxy c.1440, prokecye, "agency of one who acts instead of another," contraction of Anglo-Fr. procuracie, from M.L. procuratia "administration," from L. procuratio "care, management," from procurare "manage" (see procure).
As far as Starcraft, my understand has always been that the usage of proxy was in the most classic sense an agent otherwise unrelated working on the behalf of a individual, or better yet someone "on the outside"
hence a "proxy" building is an outside factor unrelated to your base. Obviously you control it, not a third party (that would be cheating!) but it's a substitute to your base
I'm no expert but I think if commentators just relaxed a bit more during their casts [ they are usually at home in plain clothes after all ] they could vastly improve their clarity. Sometimes they'll start talking about one race's worker...for example in PvZ they will talk about a drone scout and then for the rest of the entire match any worker scout or xel'naga scout is automatically a drone.
Also they miss little things like what color and what position people are in regards to 3'oclock, 7'oclock etc... Another thing that I kinda cringe at is commentators in mirror matches call the other player the wrong name. So maybe in a White-rA vs Nony they would say a phase prism that belongs to Nony is actually White-rAs. All of these things are very small details but I think they are the easiest to fix.
On July 20 2010 16:53 Aberu wrote: As much as you guys complain, you could have it worse, you could be a tournament follower of the Super Smash game scene. Even the WORST commentators from Starcraft are ten times as professional as the ones our community think are the best. In fact most commentators for fighting games are idiots (yipes anyone? reminds me of the background voice in Idiocracy that would announce the president coming out).
Rockefeller from 3S & Family Fun is my favourite commentator of any genre. I used to consciously tried to emulate his style.
loooool FFA commentary guys so goooooood personal favs + Show Spoiler +
last one is done my dirty sanchez and ray ramos(sp) sanchez is even funny commentating on shit he doesnt even know + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esKHCkbcZ4s
I'm gonna have to agree with Chill here. Rockefeller is THE best video game commentator I have ever heard. Thing is though, since SC isn't as action packed as fighting games, it doesn't translate well. Here is him giving an interview recently though:
----
Also about this whole proxy thing. In magic the gathering proxy is used when a player takes a shitty card and writes on it and uses it place of an expensive rare of a card they don't have/don't want to wear out. So in this instance, the word is used like 'fake/placeholder' Approximate. But in a tournament actually, a proxy has to be near by and proved so you could technically also use it like 'proximity'.
Since in starcraft people never use the fake/placeholder version (fake double terran, for example). The usage is exclusively a reference to the fact that it's not at home base, closer to the opponent's base. Proximity.
a proxy is not necessarily closer to your opponents base though. They can also be used simply to hide tech, in which case the proximity is irrelevant, but it's still a proxy.
I still maintain that proxy has always been proxy, not short for anything. I can understand the confusion since they both look similar and in some cases you can understand the usage of one over the other, but proxy isn't short for proximity and it's a perfectly adequate term on its own for something outside your base so I'm not sure why people would want it to stand for anything else
I suppose people could argue the fact that a proxy building absolutely must be a production facility with a shorter than usual rush distance to an opponents base, and that that's why proxy is in actual fact short for proximity but to me that's reaching even further to call this spade something other than a spade
Liqupedia is written by the newschool. Back in the day, proxy was for proximity. A proxy does have to be closer to your opponent. If it's not then it's just hidden tech and not a proxy.
Maybe it's changed but I'm going with the 2000 definitions here.
I mean at this point there's no reason to continue discussing it. They both make sense and proxy has taken on its own meaning in video games.
It couldn't possibly be that whoever told you that in 2000 got it wrong to begin with
As far back as I can recall, it was always a "proxy pylon" that was used to make hidden DT tech.
In fact, I don't recall a time when a pylon itself was ever offensive, but was always considered proxy if it was outside of your base. Proxy gateways fit this narrow definition, but why is "proxy pylon" so ubiquitous to SC if proxies are strictly offensive maneuvers
On July 22 2010 23:52 floor exercise wrote: It couldn't possibly be that whoever told you that in 2000 got it wrong to begin with
As far back as I can recall, it was always a "proxy pylon" that was used to make hidden DT tech.
In fact, I don't recall a time when a pylon itself was ever offensive, but was always considered proxy if it was outside of your base. Proxy gateways fit this narrow definition, but why is "proxy pylon" so ubiquitous to SC if proxies are strictly offensive maneuvers
Colossus // Colossi - that's singular // plural. Now in early beta there was some confusion as to what the plural of Colossus was, but now people are using "Colossi" for singular. Wtf is up with that.
"We'll have to wait and see" - Usually you don't.
"Fast X, X rush" - Some commentators say this regardless of time at which it's built. wth.
"So smart of Huk putting a pylon here to reinforce" - it's not smart. it's superduper standard.
Short air distances - WE KNOW. OH FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST WE KNOOOOOW
Extra chance adverbs "could possibly/potentially do x" - asdf.
Hidden expo - when spawning in close positions on a 4p map, taking the main base opposite your opponent's isn't "hidden", it's the clever thing to do.
Day9 also uses "push" a lot when they're attacks. :/
Also "unbelievable" things are usually quite believable
I checked the first 5 pages and it wasn't mentioned, but the name of the 8th terran mission in the original campaign was "The Big Push".
It implies you're conquering a lot of occupied/defender territory though. So if you roll through multiple expansions like in tvp SC1 without sieging that's a push. If you break a siege and continue driving to their base it's a push.
"It doesn't look like ______ is going to be able to recover from this. Yup, it's gonna have to be GG. There's just nothing he can do to come back from this."
I'm utterly annoyed when the commentators try to make it sound like the game isn't or may not be over to make it more interesting.
"Wow, I don't think july's going to be able to come back from this" When he's at 1 base vs 4 base terran who has 14 siege tanks at his nat, OFC he isn't coming back from this.
On May 05 2011 01:23 TadH wrote: Funny how you yourself now use these terms in the wrong context (according to you) since you started doing the TSL
How is that funny? Can you give me examples?
I'm trying to guess which one you're reaching for. I know I've said "Protoss player" when I've quickly forgotten a player's ID. I don't think I misuse any of the other ones.
On May 05 2011 01:23 TadH wrote: Funny how you yourself now use these terms in the wrong context (according to you) since you started doing the TSL
How is that funny? Can you give me examples?
I'm trying to guess which one you're reaching for. I know I've said "Protoss player" when I've quickly forgotten a player's ID. I don't think I misuse any of the other ones.
Without specific examples, I can safely say I remember you using the term push (not referring to a tank push).
Duh, this is silly. The language is what the people say. There's no right or wrong in informal speech. That's why dictionaries are updated every few months, or even less now that we have online dictionaries.
If a well known noun on the dictionary is being used as a verb in informal speech. Then the dictionary is outdated, and should be updated to reflect the progress.
If a well known noun in mr. Chill's starcraft dictionary is being used as a verb. Then mr. Chill's dictionary is wrong and should be updated to the most current version. The commonly debated word "meta-game" has complete different meaning in different gaming communities. None of them is wrong.
Languages evolve, split, merge but never stays the same. When they do, it's declared a dead language. Getting angry because some people use the language different from you is just so superficially silly.
On May 05 2011 04:01 VIB wrote: Duh, this is silly. The language is what the people say. There's no right or wrong in informal speech. That's why dictionaries are updated every few months, or even less now that we have online dictionaries.
If a well known noun on the dictionary is being used as a verb in informal speech. Then the dictionary is outdated, and should be updated to reflect the progress.
If a well known noun in mr. Chill's starcraft dictionary is being used as a verb. Then mr. Chill's dictionary is wrong and should be updated to the most current version. The commonly debated word "meta-game" has complete different meaning in different gaming communities. None of them is wrong.
Languages evolve, split, merge but never stays the same. When they do, it's declared a dead language. Getting angry because some people use the language different from you is just so superficially silly.
If you want to use that subjectivity argument, I guess it's alright to say that words mean what people say they mean. But then, isn't it a part of the process for people like Chill to have their say as well, to fight for the older, established meanings? I think it's a little hypocritical to say "none of the various definitions are wrong, except for Chill's."
Anyway, I think Chill's problem with misusing these words is that they're being completely sapped of meaning. Why use "push" to mean attack, when "attack" can do the same thing, and "push" means something else entirely? What, then, do you call a tank line leapfrogging, or any other slow and methodical advance of units across the field? It's much, much more efficient to just say "push." It used to be such a clear, powerful word, but now it's some vague generic that hardly means anything at all.
Similarly with metagame: it used to mean something quite useful and subtle, but now its just some throwaway word people bandy about to make their posts seem more thoughtful and abstract.
Okay, so some of these may have just been out of annoyance, but overall I think it's an important thing to defend the identities of powerful, specific words. If "push" is synonymous with "attack," how are you going to talk about a push in the old sense in a clear, efficient manner? And with metagame: how are you actually going to talk about the metagame, if that entire economy of thought has been lost by laziness and/or ignorance? It's damn impossible. That's why it's important to guard certain words, because without certain words we can't talk about certain things.
On May 05 2011 04:23 jellyfish wrote: If you want to use that subjectivity argument, I guess it's alright to say that words mean what people say they mean. But then, isn't it a part of the process for people like Chill to have their say as well, to fight for the older, established meanings? I think it's a little hypocritical to say "none of the various definitions are wrong, except for Chill's.".
It's not decided by committee or something, words take on meaning organically. He's not saying "words have no meaning just use them however" he's saying that the word doesn't draw meaning from being codified somewhere but from how it's used in speech/writing/whatever.
On May 05 2011 04:23 jellyfish wrote: If you want to use that subjectivity argument, I guess it's alright to say that words mean what people say they mean. But then, isn't it a part of the process for people like Chill to have their say as well, to fight for the older, established meanings? I think it's a little hypocritical to say "none of the various definitions are wrong, except for Chill's.".
It's not decided by committee or something, words take on meaning organically. He's not saying "words have no meaning just use them however" he's saying that the word doesn't draw meaning from being codified somewhere but from how it's used in speech/writing/whatever.
right, but I don't understand why the impulse to create new meanings is organic whereas the impulse to preserve old ones isn't.
On May 05 2011 04:23 jellyfish wrote: If you want to use that subjectivity argument, I guess it's alright to say that words mean what people say they mean. But then, isn't it a part of the process for people like Chill to have their say as well, to fight for the older, established meanings? I think it's a little hypocritical to say "none of the various definitions are wrong, except for Chill's.".
It's not decided by committee or something, words take on meaning organically. He's not saying "words have no meaning just use them however" he's saying that the word doesn't draw meaning from being codified somewhere but from how it's used in speech/writing/whatever.
right, but I don't understand why the impulse to create new meanings is organic whereas the impulse to preserve old ones isn't.
The point is this thread or any thread like this isn't part of the organic evolution of language, whether it advocates further change, no change, or reversion. If people start using the old meanings or continued using whatever current meanings there are without a thread asking them to that would be organic. This is inorganic not because it calls for preservation but because it is proposing a specific set of meanings.
One of my personal hates is when commentators use adjectives instead of adverbs. For example, "He is playing good" (well). Not just SC2, it's also common in football commentary.
On May 05 2011 04:23 jellyfish wrote: If you want to use that subjectivity argument, I guess it's alright to say that words mean what people say they mean. But then, isn't it a part of the process for people like Chill to have their say as well, to fight for the older, established meanings? I think it's a little hypocritical to say "none of the various definitions are wrong, except for Chill's.".
It's not decided by committee or something, words take on meaning organically. He's not saying "words have no meaning just use them however" he's saying that the word doesn't draw meaning from being codified somewhere but from how it's used in speech/writing/whatever.
right, but I don't understand why the impulse to create new meanings is organic whereas the impulse to preserve old ones isn't.
The point is this thread or any thread like this isn't part of the organic evolution of language, whether it advocates further change, no change, or reversion. If people start using the old meanings or continued using whatever current meanings there are without a thread asking them to that would be organic. This is inorganic not because it calls for preservation but because it is proposing a specific set of meanings.
In that case I reject being organic as the sole rubric for acceptable language evolution. People have been writing dictionaries and arguing about definitions since forever, and it hasn't been a negative thing to have both "inorganic" and "organic" forces shape language by the interplay.
Also, I don't want to derail any further. I'm done >_<
On May 05 2011 04:01 VIB wrote: Duh, this is silly. The language is what the people say. There's no right or wrong in informal speech. That's why dictionaries are updated every few months, or even less now that we have online dictionaries.
If a well known noun on the dictionary is being used as a verb in informal speech. Then the dictionary is outdated, and should be updated to reflect the progress.
If a well known noun in mr. Chill's starcraft dictionary is being used as a verb. Then mr. Chill's dictionary is wrong and should be updated to the most current version. The commonly debated word "meta-game" has complete different meaning in different gaming communities. None of them is wrong.
Languages evolve, split, merge but never stays the same. When they do, it's declared a dead language. Getting angry because some people use the language different from you is just so superficially silly.
I table plant this hammmmmmmm. Wrong silicon shant lure.
On May 05 2011 04:01 VIB wrote: Duh, this is silly. The language is what the people say. There's no right or wrong in informal speech. That's why dictionaries are updated every few months, or even less now that we have online dictionaries.
If a well known noun on the dictionary is being used as a verb in informal speech. Then the dictionary is outdated, and should be updated to reflect the progress.
If a well known noun in mr. Chill's starcraft dictionary is being used as a verb. Then mr. Chill's dictionary is wrong and should be updated to the most current version. The commonly debated word "meta-game" has complete different meaning in different gaming communities. None of them is wrong.
Languages evolve, split, merge but never stays the same. When they do, it's declared a dead language. Getting angry because some people use the language different from you is just so superficially silly.
I table plant this hammmmmmmm. Wrong silicon shant lure.
On May 05 2011 04:01 VIB wrote: Duh, this is silly. The language is what the people say. There's no right or wrong in informal speech. That's why dictionaries are updated every few months, or even less now that we have online dictionaries.
If a well known noun on the dictionary is being used as a verb in informal speech. Then the dictionary is outdated, and should be updated to reflect the progress.
If a well known noun in mr. Chill's starcraft dictionary is being used as a verb. Then mr. Chill's dictionary is wrong and should be updated to the most current version. The commonly debated word "meta-game" has complete different meaning in different gaming communities. None of them is wrong.
Languages evolve, split, merge but never stays the same. When they do, it's declared a dead language. Getting angry because some people use the language different from you is just so superficially silly.
I think you're absolutely right. But I would add that it's even sillier when you consider that this isn't a real problem. It's not like people are actually misunderstanding the meaning of "archon/zealot push." The way it's being used is clear enough, a push is a major attack as opposed to harassment.
And by the way, I'm under the impression that a siege tank push would be labeled a siege push, or a slow push in the case of something like lurkers. If you're building cannons one after the other in a direction, then there's no reason why you can't call that a cannon push, under the current meaning. That actually makes a bit more sense to me than the original terminology which Chill discussed. I do get what Chill is saying, but a slow push or siege push is more indicative of the concept behind the term in my opinion.
On May 05 2011 04:01 VIB wrote: Duh, this is silly. The language is what the people say. There's no right or wrong in informal speech. That's why dictionaries are updated every few months, or even less now that we have online dictionaries.
If a well known noun on the dictionary is being used as a verb in informal speech. Then the dictionary is outdated, and should be updated to reflect the progress.
If a well known noun in mr. Chill's starcraft dictionary is being used as a verb. Then mr. Chill's dictionary is wrong and should be updated to the most current version. The commonly debated word "meta-game" has complete different meaning in different gaming communities. None of them is wrong.
Languages evolve, split, merge but never stays the same. When they do, it's declared a dead language. Getting angry because some people use the language different from you is just so superficially silly.
I table plant this hammmmmmmm. Wrong silicon shant lure.
Cookie jar!
To be honest, you could be clearer with what you are trying to convey
Sometimes commentators mix up stargate/starport. I know it's usually just a slip of the tongue, and they both make air units, but the game's been out for a year now.
Earlier I said that I called the smash commentators idiots or something.
I didn't really mean that, or that way. More like that most fighting game commentators just sound like people that randomly walked up and started talking into the microphone. At most small-time tournaments, that's exactly who they are, random (usually people well-known in the community somewhat) who just walk up and start yelling into the mic with no monitor for their voice levels. This is, of course into the lowest quality mic imaginable, and they spend an enormous amount of time not talking about what is actually going on. Husband and Wife's commentary was amazing. The commentary back in the day during MLG in the Melee years was amazing. Just the fact that waffles is seen as the best commentator in smash is somewhat disheartening since he screams obscenities into the mic, yells things you think you would hear out of the host of a rap battle, etc... Just always found it annoying, was stating my opinion. Calling them idiots was wrong. I meant to say they came across as idiotic in how they decided to scream incoherently over the microphone.
To summarize, I was wrong to name-call, thanks for pointing it out. I still don't think that their commentating is all that great. Imagine if Debo commentated everything in SC and was regarded as the best commentator by the mostly sub 19 year old community (if SC was like that) and you will know what I'm talking about.
It's so hard to adequately get my point across in regards to this. Yes they are funny and entertaining. They also have never made the effort to do anything consistently, up the ante of the production quality at their events, made videos on advice to new players, tried to get new players into the game through weekly/daily shows with lots of information, etc... Melee and Brawl are just as mysterious at the highest level like just almost any game competitively, but Melee and Brawl pros and highest up members of the community are nowhere near the level of professionalism and dedication that I have seen here.
Christ we had a long time well-trusted tournament organizer fuck everything up and steal all of the prize money recently. That same man who will never run a tournament, was the only one trying to up the ante, make events bigger, and got the players to come out bigger and better every tournament except his last event. Brawl was featured at MLG but thanks to childish antics and Nintendo staying quiet in regards to allowing it to be streamed, smash has once again fell off the competitive radar just as it was picking up steam and getting interesting. There have been many groups that have come up in the community to try and make it take off, and all of them failed. I'm just saying, that the SC community is pretty freagin awesome, you could have it worse, you could have the less dedicated, less entertaining competitive gaming communities as your home.
I don't really get annoyed by universal things, just things that individual commentators do a lot.
One thing that often irritated me (but doesn't really anymore) was HuskyStarcraft's tendency to use the phrase "simply because" thirty or forty times a game.
"We do see that he is making many units." : This one doesn't bother me at all. It does sound like its addressing some unasked question, but the fact is that question is often there, because the observer will often scroll over to their base and the sort of unasked question is "what is the player going to do to react to this".
Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
The word "fewer" is kind of awkward to begin with, so I don't really blame people for not using it. Chill examples make it seem like English is the caster's second language (or he or she is trying to be funny).
Dictionary.com says less means the same as fewer (although fewer doesn't mean the same as less). "fewer: less than a dozen" "a smaller amount or quantity: Hundreds of soldiers arrived, but less of them remained." I think most people use the word this way. I'm not one of those people who say 'language is always evolving' and pretend that's a good argument, but I think you have to respect how people actually use the word. What sounds better: "I have less cookies than him!" or "I have fewer cookies than him!" Less sounds best, because one syllable conveys the emotion much better. Fewer is a somewhat clinical word which you stumble over and slow down to say properly.
Then again, if your commentary consists of saying 'this guy has less units than this guy' it's gonna be pretty boring regardless. It's not so much an abuse of language as it is just people not having anything interesting to say.
So I'm saying that you're right these commentaries are bad, but I think the faults go beyond petty inconsistencies with how language is being used. If everything else was good, you wouldn't notice the grammar. When you read good modernist writing, you're not upset by sentences without subjects or verbs. When people read bad writing in general, the first thing they go after is the grammar errors, but it's never the real problem.
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
1. I have never understood what exactly a timing attack means. It seems to be used anytime you attack when soon after an upgrade or unit finishes. What exactly is a timing attack? Its used as such a general term.
2. I always thought metagame meant any information the players are using from out of game, I avoid using it though because you hear people talking about how its so misused, but I have never actually heard anyone explain what it really means.
3. In war, pushing means to advance forward, to go on the offensive, this is a war game, so this one does not bother me at all. Now when its a smaller attack with a group of units that only represents a fraction of the players total force then yes attack is the correct term, but when someone is moving all there forces out to perform a major offensive then "push" is correct. Or even when someone moves out to take control of a certain area, a planned move to accomplish a directed goal, then push is also correct because you are pushing the opponent out of that area of the map, you are advancing your front lines, and reducing your opponents front lines. This is a push.
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
There really aren't many standardized builds at all, so are there any real timings builds at all in SC2? It's like you can do any of the dozen 2hatch muta builds and people will still make it seem like they're all the same. Or open in any random variety, fast expand, move out with a bunch of tanks and they'll still talk about a "timing", but the phrase is so vague that it's almost meaningless sometimes.
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
1. I have never understood what exactly a timing attack means. It seems to be used anytime you attack when soon after an upgrade or unit finishes. What exactly is a timing attack? Its used as such a general term.
2. I always thought metagame meant any information the players are using from out of game, I avoid using it though because you hear people talking about how its so misused, but I have never actually heard anyone explain what it really means.
3. In war, pushing means to advance forward, to go on the offensive, this is a war game, so this one does not bother me at all. Now when its a smaller attack with a group of units that only represents a fraction of the players total force then yes attack is the correct term, but when someone is moving all there forces out to perform a major offensive then "push" is correct. Or even when someone moves out to take control of a certain area, a planned move to accomplish a directed goal, then push is also correct because you are pushing the opponent out of that area of the map, you are advancing your front lines, and reducing your opponents front lines. This is a push.
A timing attack, as far as I understand it, is an attack that hits a very specific window of opportunity. Often you will time an upgrade to coincide with this window, or cut workers to mass up to hit the window, but the fact that an upgrade finishes doesn't usually create a window itself. An example of a window of opportunity is the time after an opponent cuts production to expand. There will be a period before the expansion kicks in that the player will have a weaker force. Another example would be hitting before a key tech unit comes out. I don't know about SC2 that much, but a classic BW example is TvZ hitting the zerg just before hive tech and defilers properly kick in. Thus they invest in something other than army, making them vulnerable, and you strike before the investment kicks in.
On June 10 2011 04:36 SlimeBagly wrote: One that's always bothered me, that casters get wrong 95% of the time:
"Player A has LESS scvs" "Player B has LESS marines"
wrong wrong wrong.
=> Player A has FEWER scvs. => Player B has FEWER marines.
You have LESS gas, but you have FEWER expansions.
Yes, stuff like this (countable vs uncountable) is starting to bug me too.
The sad thing is that if this were right it could be used to add such richness to a cast. Consciously deciding to refer to a particularly large group of zerglings as though they were a single entity should be an enjoyable variation, not the mistaken norm
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
How about all-in chill. No love?
We could make a ridiculously long list which includes everything from magic box to 'marine splitting.' Makes me cringe. I cannot believe how many people copy Sean too with big blunder and some others.
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
1. I have never understood what exactly a timing attack means. It seems to be used anytime you attack when soon after an upgrade or unit finishes. What exactly is a timing attack? Its used as such a general term.
2. I always thought metagame meant any information the players are using from out of game, I avoid using it though because you hear people talking about how its so misused, but I have never actually heard anyone explain what it really means.
3. In war, pushing means to advance forward, to go on the offensive, this is a war game, so this one does not bother me at all. Now when its a smaller attack with a group of units that only represents a fraction of the players total force then yes attack is the correct term, but when someone is moving all there forces out to perform a major offensive then "push" is correct. Or even when someone moves out to take control of a certain area, a planned move to accomplish a directed goal, then push is also correct because you are pushing the opponent out of that area of the map, you are advancing your front lines, and reducing your opponents front lines. This is a push.
There are many types of timing and some are barely related to others. They are, however, joined by one fact: Timing is maximizing your advantage at a certain relative game time. Vague as it sounds, that’s the best definition I can come up that covers all forms of timing.
A timing attack is doing a specific build that is fundamentally designed to be strongest at a period when your opponent is weakest.
2. Yes, metagame means using information from outside the game. Doing a build that blind counters the most popular build is an example of playing the metagame; however, people have just decided to use metagame as "the standard state of popular strategy" which is wrong.
3. Yes, that's a literal definiton of push and a push. They used to convey more meaning "Tank push", "Lurker push", etc. but that meaning is now completely lost. Pushing used to involve some form of activating an offensive stance and defensive stance. Now it just means attacking.
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
How about all-in chill. No love?
We could make a ridiculously long list which includes everything from magic box to 'marine splitting.' Makes me cringe. I cannot believe how many people copy Sean too with big blunder and some others.
Yea, magic box is now meaningless too. It now means "clicking anywhere that doesn't force your air units to clump up." All-in was always misused so I don't really care about that actually
On June 10 2011 04:36 SlimeBagly wrote: One that's always bothered me, that casters get wrong 95% of the time:
"Player A has LESS scvs" "Player B has LESS marines"
wrong wrong wrong.
=> Player A has FEWER scvs. => Player B has FEWER marines.
You have LESS gas, but you have FEWER expansions.
You can count gas, why not fewer for gas? I don't really know the details as it seem like such a trivial point but I thought the only difference is that fewer is supposed to be used on countable quantities.
On June 10 2011 02:48 ghrur wrote: Bump bump bump bump, because the issue has become worse now. SC2 seems to be filled with timing attacks... I doubt it actually is. People push EVERYWHERE in SC2. I hate it. It's like, Zerg trying to break a Terran's siege line, and the commentator yells, "Here comes the push!" *facepalm*
Push, metagame and timing are out of control.
1. I have never understood what exactly a timing attack means. It seems to be used anytime you attack when soon after an upgrade or unit finishes. What exactly is a timing attack? Its used as such a general term.
2. I always thought metagame meant any information the players are using from out of game, I avoid using it though because you hear people talking about how its so misused, but I have never actually heard anyone explain what it really means.
3. In war, pushing means to advance forward, to go on the offensive, this is a war game, so this one does not bother me at all. Now when its a smaller attack with a group of units that only represents a fraction of the players total force then yes attack is the correct term, but when someone is moving all there forces out to perform a major offensive then "push" is correct. Or even when someone moves out to take control of a certain area, a planned move to accomplish a directed goal, then push is also correct because you are pushing the opponent out of that area of the map, you are advancing your front lines, and reducing your opponents front lines. This is a push.
There are many types of timing and some are barely related to others. They are, however, joined by one fact: Timing is maximizing your advantage at a certain relative game time. Vague as it sounds, that’s the best definition I can come up that covers all forms of timing.
A timing attack is doing a specific build that is fundamentally designed to be strongest at a period when your opponent is weakest.
2. Yes, metagame means using information from outside the game. Doing a build that blind counters the most popular build is an example of playing the metagame; however, people have just decided to use metagame as "the standard state of popular strategy" which is wrong.
3. Yes, that's a literal definiton of push and a push. They used to convey more meaning "Tank push", "Lurker push", etc. but that meaning is now completely lost. Pushing used to involve some form of activating an offensive stance and defensive stance. Now it just means attacking.
On June 10 2011 05:35 Chef wrote: Dictionary.com says less means the same as fewer (although fewer doesn't mean the same as less). "fewer: less than a dozen" "a smaller amount or quantity: Hundreds of soldiers arrived, but less of them remained." I think most people use the word this way. I'm not one of those people who say 'language is always evolving' and pretend that's a good argument, but I think you have to respect how people actually use the word. What sounds better: "I have less cookies than him!" or "I have fewer cookies than him!" Less sounds best, because one syllable conveys the emotion much better. Fewer is a somewhat clinical word which you stumble over and slow down to say properly.
THAN HE! THAN HE! Sorry. <3
Grammatical mistakes by casters are starting to annoy me. It's "really quickly," not "real quick." Example: He's reinforcing real quick. No. He's reinforcing really quickly. Correct.
Being a non-native speaker has its advantage. I don't get annoyed by grammar mistake cos most of the time I don't even realize that they are there
But I do get annoyed if the caster/commentator uses wrong SC term. People nowadays used all-in, metagame, timing attack way to much and most of the time its just plain wrong.
I think one of the reason these terms get used to often is in SC2, the game doesn't have as much action as SC:BW. In SC:BW, you have a lot of things going on past the 3-5 mins mark to talk about, in SC2 there are alot of time caster has to find thing to discuss, to talk about when 2 players just sitting their ass off to build a death ball then a-move each other. So basically, casters make stuff up on the fly thus more mistakes are made.
On June 10 2011 04:36 SlimeBagly wrote: One that's always bothered me, that casters get wrong 95% of the time:
"Player A has LESS scvs" "Player B has LESS marines"
wrong wrong wrong.
=> Player A has FEWER scvs. => Player B has FEWER marines.
You have LESS gas, but you have FEWER expansions.
You can count gas, why not fewer for gas? I don't really know the details as it seem like such a trivial point but I thought the only difference is that fewer is supposed to be used on countable quantities.
There are a few small things that aren't really bothering but can seem bizarre from an outsider's perspective, such as...
.."he's going straight for DTs!" although you can't litterally go straight for DTs, you make other units first
... "excellent multitasking by (insert top korean pro)" does that mean other players with 250APM have bad multitasking? Somehow every two-three pronged attack is "excellent multitasking"
... "player X has finally stabilised" I love hearing this when X is actually completely dead but just not under immediate attck
... "he throws down some force fields" is throw down really the most appropriate verb here? The sentries look quite peaceful when they do it.
... "he's building marines" can you actually "build" a marine? a tank, helion, banshee ok but a marine?
... the fact that for some casters pretty much any time you attack with all your units, it's an all-in
... "gateways are morphing into warpgates" must be some infested gateways
... "zerg is building drones!" I can already imagine the queen with a bag of nails and a hammer
... "those three stalkers just sniped that command centre!" everytime a building or a unit goes down without the attacking unit being bothered it's a "snipe"
... "player X just revealed his hidden expansion!" sounds a bit overkill for a marine that follows a drone and finds an expo
Anyway none of these are really that much of a problem, make me mad or anything of the sort.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s201/Jaerba/doomdrop.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s201/Jaerba/notdoomdrop.jpg)
