On August 09 2010 17:19 538 wrote: Really nice writeups, thanks a lot!
My only wish is that you'd normalize the game rating system at the end of battle reports. It could be the common element in all the reports, that would create an organized structure for the - otherwise great - practice of several people with different styles and opinions working on these reports.
It seems apparent that different authors have different ideas in mind as to what that rating is supposed to be. Some rate out of 5, some out of 10, some give it a /5, or a N/A/10, not to mention the obvious jokes, "0/10 after ultras" and such comments. What is this?
I wish this was more consistent. I know everyone has different ideas of entertainment value, but this could be a great tool to value and watch games according to a somewhat skilled and authoritive source, and as i said, to create some internal structure. As it is, its nothing more than a very confusing "common" element in the different battle reports done by different people.
Those ratings are fairly obvious in intent. The sad face out of 5 means a disappointing game, the N/A means the game had no merit or value, it just happened and there's nothing to even give it a rating for. The 0/10 after ultras is consistent criticism that references the article itself.
On August 09 2010 17:19 538 wrote: Really nice writeups, thanks a lot!
My only wish is that you'd normalize the game rating system at the end of battle reports. It could be the common element in all the reports, that would create an organized structure for the - otherwise great - practice of several people with different styles and opinions working on these reports.
It seems apparent that different authors have different ideas in mind as to what that rating is supposed to be. Some rate out of 5, some out of 10, some give it a /5, or a N/A/10, not to mention the obvious jokes, "0/10 after ultras" and such comments. What is this?
I wish this was more consistent. I know everyone has different ideas of entertainment value, but this could be a great tool to value and watch games according to a somewhat skilled and authoritive source, and as i said, to create some internal structure. As it is, its nothing more than a very confusing "common" element in the different battle reports done by different people.
Those ratings are fairly obvious in intent. The sad face out of 5 means a disappointing game, the N/A means the game had no merit or value, it just happened and there's nothing to even give it a rating for. The 0/10 after ultras is consistent criticism that references the article itself.
Yes, it's clear what they mean given their context, but its quite useless and confusing to force every review to include the same "ratings" if the interpretation of it is completely up to the author, and they dont even try to be part of some common standard.
I'd prefer if they all gave ratings, say, between 0-10 out of 10, then add a line of personal comment if they'd like, such as "I'd prefer -10", "breathtaking play" or "" or "piss-poor" or whatever. You cant even have the illusion of comparability when you're dealing with a scale of "Machine to 8" and an other one of " to 5".
On August 09 2010 17:19 538 wrote: Really nice writeups, thanks a lot!
My only wish is that you'd normalize the game rating system at the end of battle reports. It could be the common element in all the reports, that would create an organized structure for the - otherwise great - practice of several people with different styles and opinions working on these reports.
It seems apparent that different authors have different ideas in mind as to what that rating is supposed to be. Some rate out of 5, some out of 10, some give it a /5, or a N/A/10, not to mention the obvious jokes, "0/10 after ultras" and such comments. What is this?
I wish this was more consistent. I know everyone has different ideas of entertainment value, but this could be a great tool to value and watch games according to a somewhat skilled and authoritive source, and as i said, to create some internal structure. As it is, its nothing more than a very confusing "common" element in the different battle reports done by different people.
Those ratings are fairly obvious in intent. The sad face out of 5 means a disappointing game, the N/A means the game had no merit or value, it just happened and there's nothing to even give it a rating for. The 0/10 after ultras is consistent criticism that references the article itself.
Yes, it's clear what they mean given their context, but its quite useless and confusing to force every review to include the same "ratings" if the interpretation of it is completely up to the author, and they dont even try to be part of some common standard.
I'd prefer if they all gave ratings, say, between 0-10 out of 10, then add a line of personal comment if they'd like, such as "I'd prefer -10", "breathtaking play" or "" or "piss-poor" or whatever. You cant even have the illusion of comparability when you're dealing with a scale of "Machine to 8" and an other one of " to 5".
Right now it's a bit difficult for us to agree on an overall rating. It would force us writers to have weekly panels where we argue with each other for extended periods of time.
I think the best way is to think of it like the Power Rank. The system is a bit different for each writer, but the writer tries to be consistent within his own system
OR maybe we will return to our old format we used last season, where one writer does all of the "overall" ratings, and one writer does all of the player ratings. Anyway thanks for the input :D
Hopefully you should be able to calculate the /10 scores for my /5s. The one game I designated rather than a number should not be taken as a recommendation so can be ignored.
About group A, if Effort beats Bisu, Leta might decide his game against Action isn't as valuable as getting those 2 strong contenders out of OSL. But he'd finish 2nd in his group in this case so he'll have to think about it...
Player Ratings Flash: 6/10 Flash had it very easy, since his opponent refused to defend. In an interview, Flash mentioned he had never expected the game to end outright with the rush, and he just took the gift as it came. Still, it was perfect execution in a very advantageous situation.
so you get 6 of 10 for perfect execution these days? or does it have to anything with flash being flash?
Kwark hates Flash, everyone knows that. There's a 6/10 ceiling on any games Flash play.
LOL so that's why... but I remember him giving Flash 5/5 on his games vs Baby last OSL?
Flash vs Zero game was insane, absolutely great defiler control (and Zero's transition from mutas into 2,3 extra bases was very nice). Flash with the clever overlord-irradiating killed quite a few lings.
On August 09 2010 17:52 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Oh man I scrolled down looking for PokeDex and cried when I didn't find it =(
In terms of Jaedong winning over Hydra with a BO advantage (12 pool vs 9 pool respectively), didn't the exact same thing happen to ZerO in GSM oz vs stars, and ZerO won?..I could be wrong on what build ZerO used, but I thought he used a 9 pool. I didn't watch Jaedong vs Hydra so maybe JD didn't FE or something in that game like he did against ZerO. Somebody correct the poor noob that is me please :<
On August 10 2010 03:11 Doughboy wrote: In terms of Jaedong winning over Hydra with a BO advantage (12 pool vs 9 pool respectively), didn't the exact same thing happen to ZerO in GSM oz vs stars, and ZerO won?..I could be wrong on what build ZerO used, but I thought he used a 9 pool. I didn't watch Jaedong vs Hydra so maybe JD didn't FE or something in that game like he did against ZerO. Somebody correct the poor noob that is me please :<
Uh, yes. I should have specified 12 pool gas as opposed to 12 pool expand. One of those builds could conceivably die to a 9 pool, and the other could not.
Back when Jaedong was losing ZvZs left and right during a certain period last year (he lost to Effort in a Bo3, and then to Calm in a Bo5 about a month later) he kept 12 pool expanding when it wasn't safe against 9 pools. I hope he isn't going to start making that mistake again.
EPT
/5, or a N/A/10, not to mention the obvious jokes, "0/10 after ultras" and such comments. What is this?
