|
On December 13 2010 19:09 andrewwiggin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 18:52 Taf the Ghost wrote:Put my responses in spoiler, just because it's so early in the thread. + Show Spoiler +
If you watched TSL_Rain vs Nestea, those grades are deserved. Getting really lucky on maps and still nearly not pulling off virtual free win scenario does not make him the better player. If it'd been Scrap Station in game 2 rather than Steppes, Rain is out 0-3.
As for MC vs Jinro, that's a hard one. That very much looked like MC knew what Jinro wanted to do, i.e. it was a team game, and MC had the better mind-game for it. Also, it showed that MC respected Jinro's late-game skill enough he wasn't going to risk it getting that far.
A "B" for Jinro is probably biased, but I'm not sure what grade you would give him otherwise. MC knew what he could do against Jinro, which is probably why Jinro wasn't to high on his chances of beating MC during his Ro8 interview.
Okay. But if Rain doing such POOR, HORRIBLE all-ins, still managed to win... what does that make NesTea? =/ You see what I mean? The worse player lost. Maybe NesTea is the better player on average.. but in that series, he lost. So giving him a higher ranking than Rain makes no sense, however you look at it. im kinda on your boat. It wasn't as if NesTea didn't see it coming either. He knew it was a possibility after the first time. so y he still went hatch first dumbfounded me more than Rain's All-in. Not to mention the rubber match was Rain out playing NesTea with something NesTea should have fended off (though that rear bunker probably would have made it harder)
on the other hand, when Rain tried to play straight up NesTea did wreck him. I mean they weren't even close games so i can certainly see y Rain got a lower rating.
Overall everything else was fair enough (other than Jinro's score after getting demolished by MC) Keep on Keepin' on with these recaps :D I still do love things being quantified! heh
|
Having watched the games (as most people commenting here would have, how could you say anything otherwise?) most peoples problem appears to be less with the Rain rating than with the Jinro rating.
As it stands the games failed to be a credit to Jinro ( or deserving of a 'B') because MC out played the meta game with him. The bias is understandable (this is TL after all and Jinro has done a huge amount for the community here plus is apparently an all round great guy) but for those who are major fans of Jinro would you seriously say this is the series of games of him to watch?
Hopefully he will absorb the lessons of this (to get to his level of player I am sure he will do this) and next time will be able to do more and hopefully go further.
|
Australia326 Posts
On December 13 2010 21:56 Brewed Tea wrote:
watch the games. SCV all-ins are not a sign of a good player if it guarantees a free win without much effort. cheesy all-ins are okay. but excessive cheese to win a game because you know you cant win is like a kick to the balls in a MMA fight, it is disgustingly bad and just painful to watch. It does not display any real skill, (well maybe for the defender if he succeeds). I agree with the gradings. the SCV all-ins where so bad that rain even apologized for it.
I hate to derail this topic further so I'll try to make this my last post here.
Brewed Tea, I found it funny how you state your opinion as fact.
SCV-all-ins guarantee a free win?
Please.
Oh but then you relent: cheesy all-ins are okay, just not with SCVs.
I'm glad you approve.
Your MMA analogy is terrible, as a kick to the balls is an illegal shot, and you can forfeit the fight if your opponent chooses to take it up. There is nothing illegal about any Terran play, unless they were maphacking or had external help, which of course is ridiculous.
However since you brought MMA up, it's interesting because many of the good fighters (Fitch, GSP) are consistently bashed for LnP, or Lay and Pray, where it is deemed that they are extending the fight unnecessarily (via takedowns, etc.) to cruise to a points decision. I guess it's still a poor comparison overall, but sc2 spectators seem to value longer, more drawn out matches (even if the action is few and far between) while the 'bloodthirsty' fans of MMA love the early round knockouts.
The people saying NesTea deserves the higher rating make no sense at all. If Rain played horribly, then Nestea played worse. Spouting rubbish such as 'Nestea beat himself' and 'in straight-up games, Rain got crushed' doesn't really support anything. One could easily reverse the viewpoints and say 'Rain crushed Nestea early game' and 'In the longer games, Rain beat himself'. See how ridiculous it is?
'Straight-up' is a bastardisation of some imaginary scenario such as a gentleman's duel with prior agreements.
This is Sc2. (:
|
Canada5565 Posts
Guys, the ratings are meant to be biased. They are ratings, how could they not be? If you want objectivity read the recaps themselves. Please tell me if you find those biased. If they are, then we have a problem I need to fix.
That said, I see I ranked some games based on entertainment value not the star system, so I'll change some 0 stars to 2 stars and whatever else needs tweaking.
Glad you guys uh, enjoyed it.
|
Denmark25 Posts
very strong bias in the ratings i do have to say.
giving out 1 star to great/hilarious/entertaining games, is very poor.
I hope this improves over the next GSL(s).
if it feels like fun and the commentators were really impressed, it's probably a very enjoying game to behold, and should be rated as such.
|
lol, don't get me wrong Xxio I loved the write up and I eagerly await them when they appear even when I have watched the games in question. When it comes down to it the rating thing is only a quibble...
|
2nd write up about gsl ive read and the writer is complaining about cheese again. this is a strategy game lol. if my opponent is going to be robotic and do the same thing everygame, then ya im going to find a hole and exploit it. isnt that what you're supposed to do, counter?
|
"Jane Goodall Watch Out, MC Tames Gorilla Terran"
lol... Jane Goodall was chimps. Dian Fossey was the name you're looking for (admittedly not as well known. Personally I'd have made a different attempt at a gorilla joke, maybe involving Donkey Kong)
Ggs though. Did not turn out as I expected, that's for sure.
|
On December 13 2010 22:55 Xxio wrote:
Guys, the ratings are meant to be biased. They are ratings, how could they not be? If you want objectivity read the recaps themselves. Please tell me if you find those biased. If they are, then we have a problem I need to fix.
That said, I see I ranked some games based on entertainment value not the star system, so I'll change some 0 stars to 2 stars and whatever else needs tweaking.
Glad you guys uh, enjoyed it.
We know ratings do have bias but they should be a rough guideline to how good the games were to watch. Kinda like the movie star rating system.
2 stars average, 3 stars above avergae/decent (Although your rating system has been stated in the OP and hence should be reasonably followed)
Giving games 0 or 1 stars could potentially put off alot of people from watching those games - even though some might like watching cheese or uber pro walling or rushes. Infact most of these games with Tastosis's commentary should be at least 2 stars, if not more.
But thankyou for somewhat bumping the stars. Although I still reckon Nestea v Rain game 5 should be higher than 1...
|
Good write up overall, but I'm going on the boat that says Rain's Game 5 was actually really exciting to watch - Nestea just almost holding it the entire time was much more tense than the other 2 cheeses by Rain.
|
It seems the writer belongs to the minority when it comes to the ratings.
Write up: 5 stars
Rating: 0 star.
If you find 0 star offensive, then you get my point.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On December 13 2010 23:24 RiceMuncher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 22:55 Xxio wrote:
Guys, the ratings are meant to be biased. They are ratings, how could they not be? If you want objectivity read the recaps themselves. Please tell me if you find those biased. If they are, then we have a problem I need to fix.
That said, I see I ranked some games based on entertainment value not the star system, so I'll change some 0 stars to 2 stars and whatever else needs tweaking.
Glad you guys uh, enjoyed it. We know ratings do have bias but they should be a rough guideline to how good the games were to watch. Kinda like the movie star rating system. 2 stars average, 3 stars above avergae/decent (Although your rating system has been stated in the OP and hence should be reasonably followed) Giving games 0 or 1 stars could potentially put off alot of people from watching those games - even though some might like watching cheese or uber pro walling or rushes. Infact most of these games with Tastosis's commentary should be at least 2 stars, if not more. But thankyou for somewhat bumping the stars. Although I still reckon Nestea v Rain game 5 should be higher than 1...
By this logic every game should get a high rank - just to make sure someone who happens to like that style of play isn't deterred from watching it. That would make the rating system pointless. I thought it went without saying that these are biased rankings. I can't imagine someone seeing 1 star and thinking "this IS a horrible game".
You say "should be given at least 2 stars". I don't agree. If our positions were reversed it would be me disagreeing because my feelings don't match yours. My point is that I can't rate games to reflect everyone's feelings, nor do I want to. This isn't some communal thing where I take an average.
Yeah game 5 was a bit exciting I guess.
|
On December 13 2010 19:09 andrewwiggin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 18:52 Taf the Ghost wrote:Put my responses in spoiler, just because it's so early in the thread. + Show Spoiler +
If you watched TSL_Rain vs Nestea, those grades are deserved. Getting really lucky on maps and still nearly not pulling off virtual free win scenario does not make him the better player. If it'd been Scrap Station in game 2 rather than Steppes, Rain is out 0-3.
As for MC vs Jinro, that's a hard one. That very much looked like MC knew what Jinro wanted to do, i.e. it was a team game, and MC had the better mind-game for it. Also, it showed that MC respected Jinro's late-game skill enough he wasn't going to risk it getting that far.
A "B" for Jinro is probably biased, but I'm not sure what grade you would give him otherwise. MC knew what he could do against Jinro, which is probably why Jinro wasn't to high on his chances of beating MC during his Ro8 interview.
Okay. But if Rain doing such POOR, HORRIBLE all-ins, still managed to win... what does that make NesTea? =/ You see what I mean? The worse player lost. Maybe NesTea is the better player on average.. but in that series, he lost. So giving him a higher ranking than Rain makes no sense, however you look at it.
Simply put.
Worse players can defeat better players will all-ins and cheeses. No arguing about that.
|
Interesting argument. Sirlin would disagree and his articles do make a lot of sense.
|
Although I really appreciate the recaps, always useful to check out games one was unable to watch, I have to agree with many people claiming against the ratings. If your opponent decides to go 14 hatch in every game, a marine scv allin is the cleverest thing to do. But you decided to give Rain lower grades than NesTea. Also going for all-in does not automatically mean someone is skill-less. In fact, Rain's all-in in G5 against NesTea was amazing. Not only he microed blissfully, but the way he just kept all-inning more and more units to not let NesTea come back was beautiful. Not to mention HongUn's amazing wall resistance getting low-rated, or Jinro (love him! he's such a hero) getting a B against MC when he actually was swept away.
Anyways, thank you a lot for the recaps!
|
Stars are associated with entertainment value, not instructional value. I'd rather see all games marked with stars purely on an entertainment level, and then perhaps 3-4 (number vary by round) games picked out for how instructive they were, aside from any entertainment value.
The MC/Jinro games for example are fairly instructive but not very entertaining.
And yes, giving Jinro a B for rolling over like that is quite hilarious. I love Jinro and got up at 4 in the morning to watch that, but a B?
Suppose Rain loses 4-1 or 4-2, taking a few games with 'cheese'... if Jinro got 4-0'd and never threatened to take a game (maybe game 4), this must be A+ play? But based on this summary, you'd give Rain C I suppose? "cheesy player crushed in straight up games." Not fair and you risk passing on your bias to new fans and people who don't actually watch the games.
|
On December 14 2010 00:25 Matrim wrote:Interesting argument. Sirlin would disagree and his articles do make a lot of sense.
Maybe he should put his idea into a book that will make him some money, since being a winner is the only thing that matters in the world.
|
? Sirlin is quite a major success in the gaming world both as a developer and as a top level gamer (in the games he plays) and his articles are in a book, he was also asked by Blizzard to think up the SC2 ranking system (though he thought about doing so and decided not to in the end) so his intelligence is thought of fairly highly by Blizzard.
|
|
|
I think I've found less biased write ups on youtube videos. Sigh teamliquid ... I've been following you since you detached from broodwar.com and blossomed into your own. I've been following starcraft before battlereports.com was killed by the advent of replays. Now my new browsers don't even have you among the favorite tabs anymore because people get bitched out/banned for telling it how it is. That this site has degraded to a bunch of nonsense whiners and a team that caters to these no skill whiners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
