On March 24 2013 20:19 arcane1129 wrote: It's always nice to see pvp games where expanding happens. I haven't actually watched a game of sOs yet, but from what I hear he's one of the best kespa tosses, right?
yeah he is one of the best players in proleague. 18-8 record this season and he plays for the #1 team in the league right now.
On March 24 2013 19:41 arcane1129 wrote: Ugh this commentary....really wish they had someone with some game knowledge. I don't expect a lot, but it's like they haven't even played before. Ultra cavern finishing, 2-2 melee + carapace just started, intentionally banking money....."He made too many overlords!" No....he's planning on making ultras shortly for 6 supply a piece -_-
The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You need casters to tell you what you already know?
How about now?
You think every lay-man, cousin and uncle (the audience they want to attract i.e. the ignorant majority) wants the commentary to be clogged up with exact details and figures?
Catching on yet?
Let's say you're a producer or director or whatever and you're tasked with entertaining a wider audience; are you screaming at your casters to cater to the hardcore 10%? The informed 30%? How about the casual 60%?
Surely by now...
You can't actually be serious about this. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game. If casters have no clue about strategies and decisionmaking, their casting isn't worth much. I don't need to be told that player X made an overlord. I want to know why he made an overlord.
Of course this is absurd and a logical fallacy; you're insisting the casters did something they did not. They're certainly not listing everytime an overlord is made; to base an argument on hyperbole is asinine.
I find it quite interesting the SC2 community believes they be taught to play during casted games and completely disregard the casual fan-base; it's like some kind of neat form of nerd-asperger's.
How about you stop hiding behind the big words to make yourself feel smart and instead make an argument that makes sense. If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
I believe my word-choice being your talking point can stand as my argument all on its own. I wonder what it's like - to insist someone follow my rules whilst simultaneously breaking them... and presumably not having the intellect to notice it.
In case you're lost, I'm referring to this:
"and instead make an argument that makes sense."
As it pertains to this:
If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
It appears you have yet to unveil the vastly complex system that is sports-commentary and what its purpose is.
Don't hurt yourself.
Now tell me why they have experts there to commentate games. Your logic is terrible and the only thing you're doing is arguing against me, not for your case.
The Dumbo-Genius duo-cast is tried and true since broadcasting began; the 'dumbo' is there to set-up more apt conversation with the 'genius' seamlessly between subjects. This is readily observable and widely agreed upon as the best way to divulge information to the audience without seeming contrived or even condescending.
In other words, the "genius" is there to explain what's going on. the "dumbo" is there to set the ground for the "genius" to get his knowledge across. So in other words, information should be brought across. Now tell me what that "information" should be about in SC2. Strategy? Build orders? Seems pretty reasonable if you ask me, considering this is a strategy game.
Again - you seem in able to wrap your head around entertainment business and broadcasting strategy - no matter how simply I put it.
Really, the takeaway here is you should be glad this type of casting is coming to the scene; it means your game is becoming more popular. Or I suppose this could be some hipster douche-baggery insisting some kind of special right to the content because you're an expert at said content.
Oh.
I see that this account is purely to annoy people.
On March 24 2013 19:41 arcane1129 wrote: Ugh this commentary....really wish they had someone with some game knowledge. I don't expect a lot, but it's like they haven't even played before. Ultra cavern finishing, 2-2 melee + carapace just started, intentionally banking money....."He made too many overlords!" No....he's planning on making ultras shortly for 6 supply a piece -_-
The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You need casters to tell you what you already know?
How about now?
You think every lay-man, cousin and uncle (the audience they want to attract i.e. the ignorant majority) wants the commentary to be clogged up with exact details and figures?
Catching on yet?
Let's say you're a producer or director or whatever and you're tasked with entertaining a wider audience; are you screaming at your casters to cater to the hardcore 10%? The informed 30%? How about the casual 60%?
Surely by now...
You can't actually be serious about this. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game. If casters have no clue about strategies and decisionmaking, their casting isn't worth much. I don't need to be told that player X made an overlord. I want to know why he made an overlord.
Of course this is absurd and a logical fallacy; you're insisting the casters did something they did not. They're certainly not listing everytime an overlord is made; to base an argument on hyperbole is asinine.
I find it quite interesting the SC2 community believes they be taught to play during casted games and completely disregard the casual fan-base; it's like some kind of neat form of nerd-asperger's.
How about you stop hiding behind the big words to make yourself feel smart and instead make an argument that makes sense. If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
SC2 isn't a "oh my god he got a headshot! How amazing!" type of game. There's insanely deep decisionmaking behind every single move these pros make. Most casters won't be able to fully understand them but if there's no analysis whatsoever what's the point of a commentator. To tell us what we see ourselves?
Just put down your original thought, please - it's tiring to respond to your tripe edits.
How you can say this:
"SC2 isn't a "oh my god he got a headshot! How amazing!" type of game. There's insanely deep decisionmaking behind every single move these pros make. Most casters won't be able to fully understand them but if there's no analysis whatsoever what's the point of a commentator. To tell us what we see ourselves?"
And still continue to not realize your own opinion of what is entertaining is not what's important continues to amaze.
That's funny because this argument started out with you defining what casters were supposed to do.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You're right, you need not continue this. You're not making any arguments here.
It may be entirely possible that your reading comprehension is so inept that you've extracted an entirely inaccurate version of the conversation - and then somehow allowed yourself to argue against it.
That is very poor use of ad hominem but I would be lying if I said I'd expected better.
And in the case that it is a simple analysis of the the conversation's past? Let's say, for instance, that you appeared to be arguing an entirely different point without realizing it - is it ad hominem to point that out?
Interesting stuff.
Is it ad hominem to insist your opponent is committing ad hominem when he is not?
Hmm.
I guess we'll just circle around this "nuh uh, I'm right" stuff until you actual propose something intelligible that argues for expert analysis over widely broadcasted games versus the casual pandering before you.
I'll wait for the realization that this is a showmatch.
I'll probably be waiting for a while for any kind of admission of guilt.
Pretty sure you can swarm this number of Tempests with either Phoenixes or Stalkers. But 20 Tempests? That's just a stupid number, you can't just sit back and let your opponent build that.
On March 24 2013 19:41 arcane1129 wrote: Ugh this commentary....really wish they had someone with some game knowledge. I don't expect a lot, but it's like they haven't even played before. Ultra cavern finishing, 2-2 melee + carapace just started, intentionally banking money....."He made too many overlords!" No....he's planning on making ultras shortly for 6 supply a piece -_-
The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You need casters to tell you what you already know?
How about now?
You think every lay-man, cousin and uncle (the audience they want to attract i.e. the ignorant majority) wants the commentary to be clogged up with exact details and figures?
Catching on yet?
Let's say you're a producer or director or whatever and you're tasked with entertaining a wider audience; are you screaming at your casters to cater to the hardcore 10%? The informed 30%? How about the casual 60%?
Surely by now...
You can't actually be serious about this. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game. If casters have no clue about strategies and decisionmaking, their casting isn't worth much. I don't need to be told that player X made an overlord. I want to know why he made an overlord.
Of course this is absurd and a logical fallacy; you're insisting the casters did something they did not. They're certainly not listing everytime an overlord is made; to base an argument on hyperbole is asinine.
I find it quite interesting the SC2 community believes they be taught to play during casted games and completely disregard the casual fan-base; it's like some kind of neat form of nerd-asperger's.
How about you stop hiding behind the big words to make yourself feel smart and instead make an argument that makes sense. If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
SC2 isn't a "oh my god he got a headshot! How amazing!" type of game. There's insanely deep decisionmaking behind every single move these pros make. Most casters won't be able to fully understand them but if there's no analysis whatsoever what's the point of a commentator. To tell us what we see ourselves?
Just put down your original thought, please - it's tiring to respond to your tripe edits.
How you can say this:
"SC2 isn't a "oh my god he got a headshot! How amazing!" type of game. There's insanely deep decisionmaking behind every single move these pros make. Most casters won't be able to fully understand them but if there's no analysis whatsoever what's the point of a commentator. To tell us what we see ourselves?"
And still continue to not realize your own opinion of what is entertaining is not what's important continues to amaze.
That's funny because this argument started out with you defining what casters were supposed to do.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You're right, you need not continue this. You're not making any arguments here.
It may be entirely possible that your reading comprehension is so inept that you've extracted an entirely inaccurate version of the conversation - and then somehow allowed yourself to argue against it.
That is very poor use of ad hominem but I would be lying if I said I'd expected better.
And in the case that it is a simple analysis of the the conversation's past? Let's say, for instance, that you appeared to be arguing an entirely different point without realizing it - is it ad hominem to point that out?
Interesting stuff.
Is it ad hominem to insist your opponent is committing ad hominem when he is not?
Hmm.
I guess we'll just circle around this "nuh uh, I'm right" stuff until you actual propose something intelligible that argues for expert analysis over widely broadcasted games versus the casual pandering before you.
I'll wait for the realization that this is a showmatch.
I'll probably be waiting for a while for any kind of admission of guilt.
On March 24 2013 20:25 Wildmoon wrote: Do mass blink stalkers work against mass tempest?
They do if it's just tempests, but it's not that hard to mix in Zealots with it which turns the tide around. Phoenixes are your best bet I think but Stalkers do work.
On March 24 2013 19:54 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You need casters to tell you what you already know?
How about now?
You think every lay-man, cousin and uncle (the audience they want to attract i.e. the ignorant majority) wants the commentary to be clogged up with exact details and figures?
Catching on yet?
Let's say you're a producer or director or whatever and you're tasked with entertaining a wider audience; are you screaming at your casters to cater to the hardcore 10%? The informed 30%? How about the casual 60%?
Surely by now...
You can't actually be serious about this. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game. If casters have no clue about strategies and decisionmaking, their casting isn't worth much. I don't need to be told that player X made an overlord. I want to know why he made an overlord.
Of course this is absurd and a logical fallacy; you're insisting the casters did something they did not. They're certainly not listing everytime an overlord is made; to base an argument on hyperbole is asinine.
I find it quite interesting the SC2 community believes they be taught to play during casted games and completely disregard the casual fan-base; it's like some kind of neat form of nerd-asperger's.
How about you stop hiding behind the big words to make yourself feel smart and instead make an argument that makes sense. If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
I believe my word-choice being your talking point can stand as my argument all on its own. I wonder what it's like - to insist someone follow my rules whilst simultaneously breaking them... and presumably not having the intellect to notice it.
In case you're lost, I'm referring to this:
"and instead make an argument that makes sense."
As it pertains to this:
If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
It appears you have yet to unveil the vastly complex system that is sports-commentary and what its purpose is.
Don't hurt yourself.
Now tell me why they have experts there to commentate games. Your logic is terrible and the only thing you're doing is arguing against me, not for your case.
The Dumbo-Genius duo-cast is tried and true since broadcasting began; the 'dumbo' is there to set-up more apt conversation with the 'genius' seamlessly between subjects. This is readily observable and widely agreed upon as the best way to divulge information to the audience without seeming contrived or even condescending.
In other words, the "genius" is there to explain what's going on. the "dumbo" is there to set the ground for the "genius" to get his knowledge across. So in other words, information should be brought across. Now tell me what that "information" should be about in SC2. Strategy? Build orders? Seems pretty reasonable if you ask me, considering this is a strategy game.
Again - you seem in able to wrap your head around entertainment business and broadcasting strategy - no matter how simply I put it.
Really, the takeaway here is you should be glad this type of casting is coming to the scene; it means your game is becoming more popular. Or I suppose this could be some hipster douche-baggery insisting some kind of special right to the content because you're an expert at said content.
Oh.
I see that this account is purely to annoy people.
I can understand why one's intelligence, or lack thereof, being on display may annoy someone.
On March 24 2013 20:26 Vindicare605 wrote: Pretty sure you can swarm this number of Tempests with either Phoenixes or Stalkers. But 20 Tempests? That's just a stupid number, you can't just sit back and let your opponent build that.
sOs also worked hard to distract with hallucinations which gave him time
On March 24 2013 19:54 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You need casters to tell you what you already know?
How about now?
You think every lay-man, cousin and uncle (the audience they want to attract i.e. the ignorant majority) wants the commentary to be clogged up with exact details and figures?
Catching on yet?
Let's say you're a producer or director or whatever and you're tasked with entertaining a wider audience; are you screaming at your casters to cater to the hardcore 10%? The informed 30%? How about the casual 60%?
Surely by now...
You can't actually be serious about this. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game. If casters have no clue about strategies and decisionmaking, their casting isn't worth much. I don't need to be told that player X made an overlord. I want to know why he made an overlord.
Of course this is absurd and a logical fallacy; you're insisting the casters did something they did not. They're certainly not listing everytime an overlord is made; to base an argument on hyperbole is asinine.
I find it quite interesting the SC2 community believes they be taught to play during casted games and completely disregard the casual fan-base; it's like some kind of neat form of nerd-asperger's.
How about you stop hiding behind the big words to make yourself feel smart and instead make an argument that makes sense. If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
SC2 isn't a "oh my god he got a headshot! How amazing!" type of game. There's insanely deep decisionmaking behind every single move these pros make. Most casters won't be able to fully understand them but if there's no analysis whatsoever what's the point of a commentator. To tell us what we see ourselves?
Just put down your original thought, please - it's tiring to respond to your tripe edits.
How you can say this:
"SC2 isn't a "oh my god he got a headshot! How amazing!" type of game. There's insanely deep decisionmaking behind every single move these pros make. Most casters won't be able to fully understand them but if there's no analysis whatsoever what's the point of a commentator. To tell us what we see ourselves?"
And still continue to not realize your own opinion of what is entertaining is not what's important continues to amaze.
That's funny because this argument started out with you defining what casters were supposed to do.
Casters are there to explain the game to people who don't know exactly what's going on; you've posited that you knew what was going on better than the casters - is it sinking in yet why you're an anal ass-hat for complaining?
You're right, you need not continue this. You're not making any arguments here.
It may be entirely possible that your reading comprehension is so inept that you've extracted an entirely inaccurate version of the conversation - and then somehow allowed yourself to argue against it.
That is very poor use of ad hominem but I would be lying if I said I'd expected better.
And in the case that it is a simple analysis of the the conversation's past? Let's say, for instance, that you appeared to be arguing an entirely different point without realizing it - is it ad hominem to point that out?
Interesting stuff.
Is it ad hominem to insist your opponent is committing ad hominem when he is not?
Hmm.
I guess we'll just circle around this "nuh uh, I'm right" stuff until you actual propose something intelligible that argues for expert analysis over widely broadcasted games versus the casual pandering before you.
I'll wait for the realization that this is a showmatch.
I'll probably be waiting for a while for any kind of admission of guilt.
That is correct. You'll be waiting a while.
"propose something intelligible that argues for expert analysis over widely broadcasted games versus the casual pandering before you."
On March 24 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
You can't actually be serious about this. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game. If casters have no clue about strategies and decisionmaking, their casting isn't worth much. I don't need to be told that player X made an overlord. I want to know why he made an overlord.
Of course this is absurd and a logical fallacy; you're insisting the casters did something they did not. They're certainly not listing everytime an overlord is made; to base an argument on hyperbole is asinine.
I find it quite interesting the SC2 community believes they be taught to play during casted games and completely disregard the casual fan-base; it's like some kind of neat form of nerd-asperger's.
How about you stop hiding behind the big words to make yourself feel smart and instead make an argument that makes sense. If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
I believe my word-choice being your talking point can stand as my argument all on its own. I wonder what it's like - to insist someone follow my rules whilst simultaneously breaking them... and presumably not having the intellect to notice it.
In case you're lost, I'm referring to this:
"and instead make an argument that makes sense."
As it pertains to this:
If you're arguing that the "casual fanbase" watches games without any idea of what's going on and with no desire to understand what's going on then why have a commentator at all?
It appears you have yet to unveil the vastly complex system that is sports-commentary and what its purpose is.
Don't hurt yourself.
Now tell me why they have experts there to commentate games. Your logic is terrible and the only thing you're doing is arguing against me, not for your case.
The Dumbo-Genius duo-cast is tried and true since broadcasting began; the 'dumbo' is there to set-up more apt conversation with the 'genius' seamlessly between subjects. This is readily observable and widely agreed upon as the best way to divulge information to the audience without seeming contrived or even condescending.
In other words, the "genius" is there to explain what's going on. the "dumbo" is there to set the ground for the "genius" to get his knowledge across. So in other words, information should be brought across. Now tell me what that "information" should be about in SC2. Strategy? Build orders? Seems pretty reasonable if you ask me, considering this is a strategy game.
Again - you seem in able to wrap your head around entertainment business and broadcasting strategy - no matter how simply I put it.
Really, the takeaway here is you should be glad this type of casting is coming to the scene; it means your game is becoming more popular. Or I suppose this could be some hipster douche-baggery insisting some kind of special right to the content because you're an expert at said content.
Oh.
I see that this account is purely to annoy people.
I can understand why one's intelligence, or lack thereof, being on display may annoy someone.
Your ad hominem is far below your ability to type words that make you sound smart.
EPT
