EPTThe caster would have a larger choice of interesting games (player notes included perhaps?) and Casters know how to draw POLLS to see exactly what viewers want.
Lastly, please keep the thread on topic, respectful, and contributive to solutions.
Players vs Casters - Page 16
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Serendipicus
United States90 Posts
The caster would have a larger choice of interesting games (player notes included perhaps?) and Casters know how to draw POLLS to see exactly what viewers want. Lastly, please keep the thread on topic, respectful, and contributive to solutions. | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
| ||
|
BladeRunner
United States407 Posts
Are you proposing the compromise is to cast replays of each GAME immediately after it finishes or of each SERIES? You mention that casting from replays should only introduce a 5-10 minutes delay which implies it would be the GAME but you don't address the issue with that.. in a best of 5 or best of 7, the length of the game can vary widely. And in fact is a spoiler in and of itself: Have you noticed how casters have to cover the replay timer bar? If individual games are being cast 5-10 minutes after they finish, after the first game there is an automatic spoiler (not to mention variable annoying downtime between games). If you were referring to the SERIES though, then the main issue would be the possible large delay (a bo7 can easily take an hour+) between game and cast for people to post spoilers etc. | ||
|
D.Devil
Germany227 Posts
However, in online tournaments, lag and cheating are quite important issues. And a pretty good alternative was already mentioned. It's about "live experience", this does not necessarily mean that matches have to be casted without delay. Replay casting can definitely work well if all players commit themselves to quickly providing replays after each game and not spoiling their results anywhere before the casters finished their job. This sounds like a better solution than a live stream, but it has to be executed properly and all involved parties have to work together (the "live experience" is already broken if a coverage website gets to know about the result before the casters streamed it). For now, just don't fight against the casters – it's not helping anyone. | ||
|
Slasher
United States1095 Posts
On September 06 2010 22:55 News wrote: Korean events are played in a LAN environment, comparison with football has everything to do with it since you don't want your information to get out. How do you not get the analogy? Whole debate is about the online events being different than LAN events, wtf how are you going to make it "nonexistent problem" unless you stand behind my back while I'm playing and watching the cast on the 2nd computer? I know for a fact something about the last UFC that you don't know since I'm friends with one of the participants. I am fine with a 10-15 second delay on matches to prevent this issue, which is still held as a live event. RTS games are the hardest to control in this area compared to a FPS or a Fighting game, but I don't think this should be a deterrent for live matches. As for UFC, I don't watch enough of it to know, but UFC 119 is in Indianapolis on Sept 25. I will make sure to watch, find someone who's going, and get them to text me as soon as Mir vs CroCoop has finished. | ||
|
BladeRunner
United States407 Posts
Plus that sounds like a logistics nightmare for the casting staff.. | ||
Hunch
Canada336 Posts
on the same token i do believe that the top players need to be given the top conditions, and allow who they want in the tournament besides the main admin/and or/caster, to reduce lag to a minimum and still bring a great show to us the viewers. and people need to fucking learn like in BW if you get the honer of obsing in a game with a pro like Huk or morrow or idra or really anyone else in the world and you lag, you better gtfo without anyone saying your name because its the right thing to do. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
| ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On September 06 2010 23:07 BladeRunner wrote: HuK, as the OP isn't clear, I think you should clarify: Are you proposing the compromise is to cast replays of each GAME immediately after it finishes or of each SERIES? You mention that casting from replays should only introduce a 5-10 minutes delay which implies it would be the GAME but you don't address the issue with that.. in a best of 5 or best of 7, the length of the game can vary widely. And in fact is a spoiler in and of itself: Have you noticed how casters have to cover the replay timer bar? If individual games are being cast 5-10 minutes after they finish, after the first game there is an automatic spoiler (not to mention variable annoying downtime between games). If you were referring to the SERIES though, then the main issue would be the possible large delay (a bo7 can easily take an hour+) between game and cast for people to post spoilers etc. This is something the tournament would have to decide beforehand. Your stating a problem with many obvious solutions. 1: Delay casting the initial replay even longer operating under the assumption that one of the matches wont turn into a ridiculously epic 45 minute game. 2: Accept that if you finish a game and you have no replay, that your viewers MIGHT know that the next game is much longer. 3: As you stated, delay an entire series (note: If you're behind a series the entire tournament then the delay isn't as long since you're not simply waiting for the series to be finished, it was already underway when you were doing the previous one) etc | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On September 06 2010 22:31 Slasher wrote: It seems that StarCraft is the only gaming community that is insistent on casters going over finished, ended games (replays). I think this is mainly due to Korean eSports and casting over their live Korean broadcasts for VOD's, and general old-school attitude around here. The TSL #1 and 2 worked well because the organizers and head community members around here did a good job of making sure none of the information was leaked (and in the end some of it was). As a member of the media, and someone who has watched all major sports since i was 5, and followed eSports for the past decade, it HAS TO BE LIVE. Competitive and sporting events only work when they are played live. When a match is over, it is over, and it is reported on that instant. The scores, highlights, pictures, videos, celebrations are all posted on the front page of any respectable media organization covering the event. There is no waiting and there never will be after the fact. The real problem, in the example of the MorroW match, is the sheer number of broadcasters. 14 is ridiculous, and it's ESL's job to make sure only authorized people are in the games. This counts for both the lag and cheating aspects. If a broadcaster was found to be giving results to a player during a live match (which is pretty hard to do anyway), then there's a much larger issue at hand. I've personally never heard of this happening in any of the major eSports (SC, Quake, CS, Street Fighter, Wc3, CoD, etc). it isnt hard to avoid spoilers at all, even if its been reported everywhere else, as long as the casters dont talk about it during the games. it just means you dont visit any esports sites as long as the tournament is going on. this is not a situation like hdh where things are played days or weeks later, broadcasts would just be delayed until the match is over, and thered be other games casted in the meantime. the only downside is you cant really participate in stream chats or anything like that, but thats a hell of a lot better than just dealing with the fact that people are cheating. | ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
| ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On September 06 2010 23:09 Slasher wrote: I am fine with a 10-15 second delay on matches to prevent this issue, which is still held as a live event. RTS games are the hardest to control in this area compared to a FPS or a Fighting game, but I don't think this should be a deterrent for live matches. As for UFC, I don't watch enough of it to know, but UFC 119 is in Indianapolis on Sept 25. I will make sure to watch, find someone who's going, and get them to text me as soon as Mir vs CroCoop has finished. Hahaha, 10-15 seconds. So you want a completely useless buffer? This shit is blowing my mind. A realistic amount of time has to pass in order for somebody to gain minimal to no information from a stream. 5 minutes is a good starting time, but even that many would argue isn't enough. | ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
On September 06 2010 15:08 Fodder03 wrote: Even easier, have 1 tounry rep in each game and have HIM save the replay to give out to the casters after. No lag for players, guaranteed replays, and the fans get to see the games. E z p z Dont say there is too many games going on, im sure u could find enough volunteers in the community to obs and save replays. The point is that the players should be #1 priority. If a player is lagging, like huk was, playing from Canada on eu, every bit of lag is amplified. Casters need to show some respect for the people giving them something to cast. So what's the difference in lag between having an admin watch the game and 1 or 2 casters? None.. | ||
|
D.Devil
Germany227 Posts
On September 06 2010 23:12 IdrA wrote: it just means you dont visit any esports sites as long as the tournament is going on. That is not an option. As soon as the results are public, the "live experience" is gone. Contrary to Slasher, I don't insist on "100% live" but the people on the stream have to be sure that it's the first place where they are going to see the result. This is why I assume that if you want replay casting to work, everyone has to work together closely. And we all know how complicated things can get. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On September 06 2010 23:17 D.Devil wrote: That is not an option. As soon as the results are public, the "live experience" is gone. Contrary to Slasher, I don't insist on "100% live" but the people on the stream have to be sure that it's the first place where they are going to see the result. This is why I assume that if you want replay casting to work, everyone has to work together closely. And we all know how complicated things can get. It's closer to the middle ground. The results will be somewhere, but don't sit on the live report thread on TL or the bracket on the official web site spamming f5. Just have to avoid where it would likely be spoiled if you're extremely concerned about being spoiled in the first place. And this shouldn't be a huge issue since most of this revolves around the smaller tournaments. | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
I think we should cast replays after the game is done from Quarterfinals and up, maybe depending on prize money. | ||
|
GenoZStriker
United States2914 Posts
On September 06 2010 23:16 Martijn wrote: So what's the difference in lag between having an admin watch the game and 1 or 2 casters? None.. There is likely to be lag. But yeah if there are just two streamers in it then it would not make a difference compare to say the #14 everyone's been using. | ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
On September 06 2010 16:35 sikatrix wrote: offtopic ps; martijn, are you the same one from CAL? Yeah I was operations staff for CAL but lets leave that in the past. | ||
|
GenoZStriker
United States2914 Posts
Like in HuK's case at the GosuCup he felt the streamers were lagging and affect his play. The Gosu admin did a good job and allowed the games to go on and cast the replays afterward. Sure it might have seemed like an excuse for losing but then he came back to win it after being down 0:3 with no casters. In MorroW's case was simply an act of frustration because the admins were not being reasonable. "14 streamers or DQ so STFU" which should not happen. If they had simply done 1admin+Take then there would not have been lag, MorroW would not have gotten frustrated and did what thought was better for him and the other player. We should not try to get rid of streaming because it's a great thing to have for spectators and the scene. We should however try to fix the problems that streaming brings. | ||
|
D.Devil
Germany227 Posts
On September 06 2010 23:22 I_Love_Bacon wrote: It's closer to the middle ground. The results will be somewhere, but don't sit on the live report thread on TL or the bracket on the official web site spamming f5. Just have to avoid where it would likely be spoiled if you're extremely concerned about being spoiled in the first place. And this shouldn't be a huge issue since most of this revolves around the smaller tournaments. It's not about the fear of seeing a spoiler. Like I've written before, the "live experience" is relevant to how much enjoyment a not-so-small group of spectators gets out of following an event. It's just the knowledge that they could get to know the result somewhere else already that has a negative influence on spectator numbers. I'm suggesting that instead of arguing if we want to provide a "live experience" or not, we could try to see if it's compatible with replay casting. If you guys really have such a big problem with a live stream, this seems to be the most reasonable option for me. | ||
| ||
