EPTHave At You! #7 - $100 - 1.18 - June 24th - Page 3
| Forum Index > Brood War Tournaments |
|
IShowUMagic
United States104 Posts
| ||
|
Randos
Germany48 Posts
| ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/154105703 https://www.twitch.tv/videos/154156697 Will try to upload to YouTube. | ||
|
pomwine
12 Posts
On June 25 2017 06:38 Jealous wrote: Race picking IS allowed in Korean tournaments, or at least it used to be. I'd like to see some sort of proof that this has changed. In past tournaments where this has happened (not speaking for Schamtoo or HAY), players often come to an agreement. It's just that simple. If I recall correctly, there was an instance where the two players switched - G1 PvT, G2 TvP, for example. What if the players can't come to an agreement? Flip a coin? What if there are more than 2 possible matchups to randomize, use a custom 3-way RNG? It just seems like a messy rule to me. Koreans were allowed to race-pick for a while, up to I would guess about 2004-2005 or so. ChRh was a random player and sometimes race-picker. Joyo was a Terran who played PvT. The leagues stopped allowing it for the reasons I just mentioned. Back when I played (2002ish), I was good at mirror-matchups and tried to be a race-picker who always picked the mirror. This turned out to be almost impossible because I constantly ran into race-pickers who race-picked specifically to avoid mirrors. There's no agreement that can be made in that situation, one person only practiced mirrors and the other person literally never plays mirrors lol. But this is a small tournament, so if the players can just come to agreements and that works, that's cool I guess. | ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
| ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
On June 25 2017 10:42 pomwine wrote: What if the players can't come to an agreement? Flip a coin? What if there are more than 2 possible matchups to randomize, use a custom 3-way RNG? It just seems like a messy rule to me. Koreans were allowed to race-pick for a while, up to I would guess about 2004-2005 or so. ChRh was a random player and sometimes race-picker. Joyo was a Terran who played PvT. The leagues stopped allowing it for the reasons I just mentioned. Back when I played (2002ish), I was good at mirror-matchups and tried to be a race-picker who always picked the mirror. This turned out to be almost impossible because I constantly ran into race-pickers who race-picked specifically to avoid mirrors. There's no agreement that can be made in that situation, one person only practiced mirrors and the other person literally never plays mirrors lol. But this is a small tournament, so if the players can just come to agreements and that works, that's cool I guess. Maybe choose a number that caster is thinking of. Whoever got the number closest, loser picks race first and then winner picks 2nd. In the old days in korean scene, race picker has to notify his opponent 1 week ahead. Therefore, the opponent can prepare. | ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
| ||
Kiante
Australia7069 Posts
On June 25 2017 11:56 SchAmToo wrote: btw, I'm open to all caster feedback. (Please keep it constructive) I think overall you did a really good job. Some ideas for future improvements would be: 1) Say "actually" a little bit less, and tryand repeat adjectives a bit less. For example, "Scan immediately threw down the missle turret immediately" 2) When you're solo casting, I think you could maybe spend a bit less time saying what we can see, and a bit more time talking about what they might do, even if you end up being wrong I find it interesting to hear what paths the player might have, and then see if that happens or not. | ||
|
Fazers
734 Posts
| ||
|
pomwine
12 Posts
On June 25 2017 11:56 SchAmToo wrote: btw, I'm open to all caster feedback. (Please keep it constructive) Loved it all, great tournament great caster. One possible improvement would be to speak in bigger-picture terms and commentate on the long-term narrative of the game more. For example, there's a big difference between attacking with some zerglings, and stopping drone production and rallying zerglings. The first is just standard pressure to force zealot/marine/cannon/bunker production, but the second is a majorly divergent decision the Zerg player is making. He's sacrificing part of his mid/late-game economy because he thinks he's spotted some weakness that can be exploited, and a lot of the game is going to hinge on how much of an ROI he gets on that zergling rally. (Similar situations with Hydras in ZvP, Lurker/Ling in ZvT, etc) Another example would be, in TvP if a Terran is stopping SCV production and doing 5-fac macro without taking his third, it's usually because he's planning a +1 timing attack. Again betting his late-game economy on the ROI of a highly optimized mid-game push. And not just timing attacks or worker production. It can be early DT tech, 1-base lurker, timed overlord elevator, bunker rush, etc. All examples of betting your mid- or late-game economy on the acute ROI of an attack. And there are examples in the opposite direction where you risk exposing yourself to an attack in the hopes of gaining a highly optimized economy, e.g. CC before rax potentially taking a "build-order loss" to a 4pool or proxy gate, or 3rd hatch before pool potentially taking a build-order loss. But if the gamble pays off, it's huge, and the opponent needs to spend the rest of the game trying to catch up, and that colors every part of the rest of the game. And as players make these big-picture bets, where they're sacrificing future economic advantage for the potential to gain a different kind of advantage (or win outright) by optimizing the strength of their timed offense, or knowingly exposing themselves to an attack to push for a stronger economic advantage, a story unfolds. Did the Zerg player kill enough probes with his ling rally to make up for the lost drone production? Did the Terran player do enough damage and stall the Protoss expansion long enough to justify delaying his 3rd natural? Did the Protoss player pull off his 14 Nexus without taking any damage? And all these decisions have ripple effects throughout the rest of the game that are irreversible. There are PvZ matches where the Zerg stops drone production to rally lings, does a bit of damage to the Protoss wall but not enough... then the game stabilizes, goes into a 40-minute macro war, and the Protoss wins. Many casters would just say "Z fought hard but couldn't handle the superior macro of P", but a better commentary would be to convey the entire arc/narrative of the game, which is that the Zerg player misjudged the strength of the Protoss wall, sacrificed larva/drones and failed to do enough damage with his attack to make up for it, and the Protoss player converted that failed bet by Zerg into a series of subtle mid- and late-game advantages that culminated in him winning the macro war and taking the game. And every game has major tactical shifts that happen both ways, it's not just one thing that colors the game, it's also how the players choose to respond. In the above example, the Protoss player could have overestimated the mid-game economic advantage he'd gain from the failed ling rally, causing him to delay his 3rd to optimize a 2-base timing attack of gateway units thinking he could end the game there, then failed, giving up his late-game economic advantage and eventually losing the macro war. Maybe a good practice would be to end each game by recapping each major "phase" the game went through, and what effect each phase had on the following phases. e.g. failed DT rush, causing delayed natural and economic disadvantage in mid-game for Protoss, but it was compensated for by stalling the Terran push with great reaver micro and taking a hidden base that went unnoticed, leading into a dominant macro endgame. etc. I'm definitely doing a bit of Monday-morning quarterbacking here.  You already do a lot of this, but the speculation on those big-picture tactical decisions is my favorite part of commentary (whether I agree with the caster or not), so I'd love it if you did more.Overall great job. I enjoy your personality, and the fact that you're someone who came to BW late in its history gives you a very interesting perspective, and I like how you're able to make comparisons to other games. You're already my second-favorite caster after Tastosis. | ||
|
AncientSion
71 Posts
| ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
On June 25 2017 15:40 AncientSion wrote: Considering the pool went to like 160$, how exactly did the distributation end up ? Still 55 % for Trutaacz ? Yes. 55% of the prize pool. | ||
|
Cryoc
Germany909 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10079 Posts
On June 25 2017 10:42 pomwine wrote: The leagues stopped allowing it for the reasons I just mentioned. Koreans were allowed to play off-race well after that (July vs. Chojja, Savior's TvZ, etc.) it just wasn't common, and as Scan said, it was announced ahead of time. Either way, I do believe that your worries are mistaken and unfounded. Your particular case would probably be a problem though, making it mirror-only. In that case I imagine you would have to ask the opponent which mirror he prefers to play and whatever he chooses, you play. That seems fair to me. | ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
On June 25 2017 13:19 Kiante wrote: I think overall you did a really good job. Some ideas for future improvements would be: 1) Say "actually" a little bit less, and tryand repeat adjectives a bit less. For example, "Scan immediately threw down the missle turret immediately" 2) When you're solo casting, I think you could maybe spend a bit less time saying what we can see, and a bit more time talking about what they might do, even if you end up being wrong I find it interesting to hear what paths the player might have, and then see if that happens or not. Heh, yes. Those are two of my biggest pain points right now. I'm super aware of me saying "actually" and working that out, it's just one of those weird quirks that commentators get when they work on building up phrasing, but end up finding a single word they fixate on. For point two, that's really just because I myself am still learning quite a bit about the game. I'm still pretty new and barely a D+ in skill. | ||
|
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
| ||
|
Bakuryu
Germany1065 Posts
On June 25 2017 16:13 Cryoc wrote: Just out of curiosity, I didn't watch much, why was Scan DQ'ed at the end, did he go afk and stopped playing? scan fell asleep at 7am KST | ||
|
fazek42
Hungary438 Posts
As you've previously admitted, one thing is game knowledge, which of course is super hard to improve and takes a ton of time and effort. One thing I definitely enjoyed in this regard is having Pisan co-cast with you, because he is obviously more knowledgable, especially regarding ZvX matchups -- so that's a cool way of getting ahead in this regard. Otherwise, just hit B+ in all 6 matchups on Iccup, no biggie. One thing I find mildly annoying is your slight over-reliance on a few phrases regarding a few specific situations. For example, when trying to build excitement you often use the phrase "ooh this a very dangerous moment for x, but also for y, because...". I personally find, and I suppose that could be just personal preference, that it would build excitement in a more organic and natural way if you just went: "will x dart in and try and bust that single cannon?? will he loose all of his lings in the process and die or will he just straight out end the game?? what will he do now???" For me, it gets somewhat tiring to hear that it's a dangerous moment in the game over and over again. Then again, for others, it might get tiring if you start yelling all the time... Not going to ever satisfy everyone completely, that's for sure, but maybe introducing a bit of variety is a good idea in the end. One specific phrase you use a lot is 'nabbing' and 'nabbing out', and in general I kind of feel that you have this mentality that if it's x situation I use the one specific y expression I use to describe that situation in every single game. I suppose this will also improve with the game knowledge, as you become more familiar and relaxed about BW terms and know in which situations you can use which expression, what's a move out, a bust, a push, an attack, a timing attack, a standard timing attack, etc. I guess I can be pretty nitpicky about people using these weird expression that started popping up in the BW scene recently like 'bodyblocking', and 'ramacro'... That last one irks me to no end, for some reason and especially how people just started copying from each other, 'cause it's a convenient one phrase fits all. Is it a new army that x managed to macro up whilst his main army was wiped out?? Is it the standard pure zealot reinforcement?? Is the next wave of units coming out? Is it a complete tech switch into mutas? You should be a master of words and creativity, influencing the emotions and perceptions of 200 people glued to the screen of their computers, not using the same silly expression for everyting. (No pressure :D) Pomwine makes good points, but basically he is just asking you to git gud at the game, and then with your superior game knowledge, you'll be able to better distill what it is that you actually have to point out and focus on. Should only take like 3-4 years of intense BW playing and analysing pro games and getting help from high rank players  I personally think that most importantly, you should just relax and go with the flow -- you are a good caster, don't take it too seriously, you'll go crazy if you do. Joke around, make fun of yourself if you want, make fun of us the elitists if you want, get genuinely excited about important moments, and let your passion shine through it all; get depressed if it feels right, tell us a story about that grocery store if it feels right in the moment. Just be confident and enjoy it -- you have already established yourself as a mainstay caster and organizer in foreign BW that people know! Mad props. | ||
|
pomwine
12 Posts
I've watched a game or two and I don't know how to read or understand what's happening like I can with BW. It always just seems like each side masses up a big ball of units, and whoever wins the fight wins the game. | ||
| ||
