On March 24 2013 14:51 SheepleArePeopleToo wrote: Gogo jangbang! Though I prefer getting all games to a tie breaker so it won't be boring like last night with TBLS
at least they won, so we might get to see bisu in the ro4 ;_;
i see we're still screwing with the polling options...let's hope this is not a trend. to whomever is creating the liquibets...call the teams what they are please, and not some nick-name you made up. thanks.
On March 24 2013 17:46 CycoDude wrote: i see we're still screwing with the polling options...let's hope this is not a trend. to whomever is creating the liquibets...call the teams what they are please, and not some nick-name you made up. thanks.
These are the real team names for this special event.
Btw people voting on games before these being played must have some issues lol
On March 24 2013 17:46 CycoDude wrote: i see we're still screwing with the polling options...let's hope this is not a trend. to whomever is creating the liquibets...call the teams what they are please, and not some nick-name you made up. thanks.
no, these are the real names. you should check your information before posting too
On March 24 2013 17:46 CycoDude wrote: i see we're still screwing with the polling options...let's hope this is not a trend. to whomever is creating the liquibets...call the teams what they are please, and not some nick-name you made up. thanks.
Hahahahahahahaha, this is my favorite post this year
On March 24 2013 17:46 CycoDude wrote: i see we're still screwing with the polling options...let's hope this is not a trend. to whomever is creating the liquibets...call the teams what they are please, and not some nick-name you made up. thanks.
Hahahahahahahaha, this is my favorite post this year
I remember yesterday when I thought that was the first time I really enjoyed SNM because he could basically 1:1 translate the chat and it brought soooooo much to the cast! Really a shame he has to step down for today.
Yesterday's matches have been really entertaining, hope this continues BOOOOOOSTER <3<3<3 but also masters and TBLS... and jangbi!!! Such a good idea to host a small tournament like this!
Ugh, Jason Lee. He's experienced in broadcast but the guy has no Starcraft knowledge, nor does he care to acquire it.
I still remember when he filled in for Tasteless on the GOM Brood War casts. "Double starport formation". This was casting that actively made it harder to understand what was happening.
On March 24 2013 18:21 epi wrote: Ugh, Jason Lee. He's experienced in broadcast but the guy has no Starcraft knowledge, nor does he care to acquire it.
I still remember when he filled in for Tasteless on the GOM Brood War casts. "Double starport formation". This was casting that actively made it harder to understand what was happening.
Any chance he might be starting to learn the game to take the Proleague casting gig permanently? I know he does a lot of other stuff, so probably not.
that's how I lose most of my zvp as well whenever I go swarm host. after 4 colossus hit the field, swarm host kinda takes up too much of my supply for anything else
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
I don't know how zergs can still not understand this. Protoss will always use counter warpins to abuse immobility. That's how protoss fought BL/infestor and of course that's how they'll fight swarm hosts. Now what did zergs do with BL/infestor? They massed spines everywhere. Why on earth wouldn't you do the same with Swarm Hosts?
On March 24 2013 18:44 figq wrote: Zero showcasing how to throw a game. And of course, Jangbi is the perfect opponent for that, he won't idra gg anytime soon.
Took Jangbi a while to realise how immobile ZerO's contain was, can't believe how bad that was from both sides oh well showmatch after all.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
Yeah. Floating 5000 minerals and 2000 gas in a friendly match that doesn't matter is the official proof that nobody should make Swarm Hosts ever again.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
Yeah. Floating 5000 minerals and 2000 gas in a friendly match that doesn't matter is the official proof that nobody should make Swarm Hosts ever again.
Infestors are useless cries all over again? Those locusts seemed extremely strong to me.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
On March 24 2013 18:44 opterown wrote: i like how enthusiastic jason lee is haha
poor zero such a throw, i think he used swarm hosts quite well that game
Oh god oh god will the three phoenixes take down the queen?? ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh andddddddddd no! they just barely.....oh and here's another pickup THERE WE GO and the QUEEN GOES DOWN.
five minutes later
OH god here are those same three phoenixes again will they pick up the queen andddddddddddddddddddddddddddd........ NO they just barely don't get it AGAIN!
These casters are SO MUCH better then the normal PL ones. Still not my favorites but very tolerable and its great I can watch/listen to these games now.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
I don't know how zergs can still not understand this. Protoss will always use counter warpins to abuse immobility. That's how protoss fought BL/infestor and of course that's how they'll fight swarm hosts. Now what did zergs do with BL/infestor? They massed spines everywhere. Why on earth wouldn't you do the same with Swarm Hosts?
It's not exactly commentary specifically on the game that was played because Zero did indeed play very badly. I do mass spines myself. Swarm hosts are still terrible and Zero shouldn't be that confident in winning when using them. The kind of games they produce are just ugh. Terribly designed unit.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
Oh this I 100% agree with. I just don't agree with them being bad strengthwise. Not at all.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
Yeah. Floating 5000 minerals and 2000 gas in a friendly match that doesn't matter is the official proof that nobody should make Swarm Hosts ever again.
Infestors are useless cries all over again? Those locusts seemed extremely strong to me.
Agree let's nerf them ! Showmatches for balance Blizzard i do hope you are watching this.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
I don't know how zergs can still not understand this. Protoss will always use counter warpins to abuse immobility. That's how protoss fought BL/infestor and of course that's how they'll fight swarm hosts. Now what did zergs do with BL/infestor? They massed spines everywhere. Why on earth wouldn't you do the same with Swarm Hosts?
It's not really commentary on the game that was played because Zero did indeed play very badly. I do mass spines myself. Swarm hosts are still terrible.
Considering ZerO would've easily won this game if he had any spines at home, I gotta disagree with this.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
I wonder why they keep making them (Broodlord, infested terrans) - I guess it fits with the idea of "the swarm".
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
Yeah. Floating 5000 minerals and 2000 gas in a friendly match that doesn't matter is the official proof that nobody should make Swarm Hosts ever again.
Infestors are useless cries all over again? Those locusts seemed extremely strong to me.
Agree let's nerf them ! Showmatches for balance Blizzard i do hope you are watching this.
Also, the game ended with ZerO having 5k minerals/gas, we should nerf zerg mining efficiency.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
Yeah. Floating 5000 minerals and 2000 gas in a friendly match that doesn't matter is the official proof that nobody should make Swarm Hosts ever again.
Infestors are useless cries all over again? Those locusts seemed extremely strong to me.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
Yeah. Floating 5000 minerals and 2000 gas in a friendly match that doesn't matter is the official proof that nobody should make Swarm Hosts ever again.
Infestors are useless cries all over again? Those locusts seemed extremely strong to me.
Agree let's nerf them ! Showmatches for balance Blizzard i do hope you are watching this.
Also, the game ended with ZerO having 5k minerals/gas, we should nerf zerg mining efficiency.
Agree, drones should cost 3 supply to help against this.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
I wonder why they keep making them (Broodlord, infested terrans) - I guess it fits with the idea of "the swarm".
I actually don't think it does at all. Isn't zerg supposed to feel like they can overrun you anytime? Swarm hosts just sit there and make you die for 30 minutes while zerg literally loses nothing. Zerg is supposed to throw millions at their opponent and come out ahead because of endless numbers. This way it's endless numbers but nothing being sacrificed.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
This. The idea of Zerg having to spawn free units that last over a certain period of time has brought us too many units that rely on this mechanic... Lurkers (or similar working mechanic) would be much more interesting, because they are also viable in lower numbers unlike swarm hosts.
JL is more tolerable than SNM, but he seems to be similar to slow talking Tasteless with no game knowledge whatsoever. I mean getting excited that 3 phoenixes "almost" take down 1 queen...its been widely known after all these years that it takes 4 to do that in 1 lift. I appreciate the improvement over SNM, but I think PL can do better.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
This. The idea of Zerg having to spawn free units that last over a certain period of time has brought us too many units that rely on this mechanic... Lurkers (or similar working mechanic) would be much more interesting, because they are also viable in lower numbers unlike swarm hosts.
Free units for Zerg has thus far been a terrible idea. I agree that the Lurker would be better, but they won't want BW 2.0 for some reason. Still, the Widow Mine has made the game much more interesting and dynamic, and it's just a modified ripoff of the spider mine.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
This. The idea of Zerg having to spawn free units that last over a certain period of time has brought us too many units that rely on this mechanic... Lurkers (or similar working mechanic) would be much more interesting, because they are also viable in lower numbers unlike swarm hosts.
Free units for Zerg has thus far been a terrible idea. I agree that the Lurker would be better, but they won't want BW 2.0 for some reason. Still, the Widow Mine has made the game much more interesting and dynamic, and it's just a modified ripoff of the spider mine.
Made the game more interesting and dynamic because the spider mine was an awesome unit, kind of like the Swarm Host is boring design and doesn't really bring any emotion to the game like Brood Lords, unless they're dying.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
This. The idea of Zerg having to spawn free units that last over a certain period of time has brought us too many units that rely on this mechanic... Lurkers (or similar working mechanic) would be much more interesting, because they are also viable in lower numbers unlike swarm hosts.
Every one appart from Blizzard would agree with this, yet either they are to proud to admit that some BW units would have a better place in Sc2 then the current units or they really want Sc2 to be completly different and they themself enjoy static passive play. Who knows, units designers might also have gone completely try hard and crazy instead of simply looking at there pref game.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
This. The idea of Zerg having to spawn free units that last over a certain period of time has brought us too many units that rely on this mechanic... Lurkers (or similar working mechanic) would be much more interesting, because they are also viable in lower numbers unlike swarm hosts.
Free units for Zerg has thus far been a terrible idea. I agree that the Lurker would be better, but they won't want BW 2.0 for some reason. Still, the Widow Mine has made the game much more interesting and dynamic, and it's just a modified ripoff of the spider mine.
Made the game more interesting and dynamic because the spider mine was an awesome unit, kind of like the Swarm Host is boring design and doesn't really bring any emotion to the game like Brood Lords, unless they're dying.
it's actually quite fun to play against. the constant stream of free units attacking you and you feel very pressured to find a way to break out the contain asap. But it is really boring to use and watch swarm host imo
On March 24 2013 18:59 Incomplet wrote: JL is more tolerable than SNM, but he seems to be similar to slow talking Tasteless with no game knowledge whatsoever. I mean getting excited that 3 phoenixes "almost" take down 1 queen...its been widely known after all these years that it takes 4 to do that in 1 lift. I appreciate the improvement over SNM, but I think PL can do better.
Funny that whenever I watch proleague there is always criticism regarding the casters... Okay, I'm not a native speaker so maybe I don't realize some faults, but I personally think that when you reach a certain level of understanding of the game it's pretty hard to not find flaws in someone's casting or at least disagreeing on some points. Also keep in mind that it's also their job to make the stream appealing to a new(er) audience and to do it in a sort of exciting way...
In addition to that constructive and precise criticism helps the casters to work on their knowledge/performance and therefore make room for improvements rather then demotivating and bashing them without further explanation.
On March 24 2013 19:10 DarkLordOlli wrote: He forgot warpgate
He just got it later, I've been seeing this more these days. With the Stargate opener it's not as necessary to get Warp Gate as soon as possible when the gas could be used for a faster Oracle.
On March 24 2013 19:10 DarkLordOlli wrote: He forgot warpgate
He just got it later, I've been seeing this more these days. With the Stargate opener it's not as necessary to get Warp Gate as soon as possible when the gas could be used for a faster Oracle.
That's what I was thinking too but that was way too late to have been on purpose I think. He had the resources and he went double stalker before warpgate. That really doesn't make sense if you go core first.
On March 24 2013 18:44 vrok wrote: Swarm hosts are terrible.
No, ZerO played absolutely terrible.
No, the design of unit is terrible. Passive push until either side gathers critical mass to either kill locusts, or they get overwhelmed. Lurker type unit would have been much more exciting.
This. The idea of Zerg having to spawn free units that last over a certain period of time has brought us too many units that rely on this mechanic... Lurkers (or similar working mechanic) would be much more interesting, because they are also viable in lower numbers unlike swarm hosts.
Free units for Zerg has thus far been a terrible idea. I agree that the Lurker would be better, but they won't want BW 2.0 for some reason. Still, the Widow Mine has made the game much more interesting and dynamic, and it's just a modified ripoff of the spider mine.
Made the game more interesting and dynamic because the spider mine was an awesome unit, kind of like the Swarm Host is boring design and doesn't really bring any emotion to the game like Brood Lords, unless they're dying.
it's actually quite fun to play against. the constant stream of free units attacking you and you feel very pressured to find a way to break out the contain asap. But it is really boring to use and watch swarm host imo
I don't find the pressure you feel being besieged by a ton of swarmhosts with hydras backing them up that enjoyable when I know that the Zerg player just macroes like crazy behind it not investing much APM at all. Also I personally find it kind of hard to scout whenever there is the possibility a heavy swarm host commitment might occur, but that might just be a problem of my playstyle Widow mines are more fun since it's possible to toy around with their AI or counter them with small amounts of cheap units (e.g. single lings)
Someone really needs to make a Star Crafts graphics mod: overhaul the entire game into those cartoony graphics. The drawings are fairly simple; so, for someone who can actually model it shouldn't be too difficult...just tons and tons of work. So much work.
I don't know how it was possible to lose that Stalker in that situation :s A pretty huge mistake. Especially considering his opening, I'd say Hero's significantly behind at this point in time, even with the queen snipe.
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 -_-
On March 24 2013 19:49 DarkLordOlli wrote: Actually doesn't this mean that HerO's gonna play again? Or am I just stupid and don't understand the format?
You are right, but yesterday second match they didn't actually follow their own announced format (the one still shown on poster in their twitch page). Weird.
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%?
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.
Why would you watch a strategy game with no idea about strategy and with casters that don't help you understand?
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.
Un-thinkable! I demand I be surrounded by equals regardless of my skill-level; no matter how subjective that may be!
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.
Why would you watch a strategy game with no idea about strategy and with casters that don't help you understand?
A caster can be there for the complete noobs. It's not just us people who watch all the time. I didn't really understand that until I saw a DOTA2 Cast when I was new to 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.
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.
Why would you watch a strategy game with no idea about strategy and with casters that don't help you understand?
A caster can be there for the complete noobs. It's not just us people who watch all the time. I didn't really understand that until I saw a DOTA2 Cast when I was new to that.
Of course, that's why play to play is important as well. That's why Tasteless/Artosis are a brilliant casting duo. They cater to the widest range because they go from the most simple things to high level analysis.
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.
Well, I actually kind of agree with what he said, even if it was not in the most pleasing tone :D Nowadays, I don't learn anything listening to the so-called "analytic casters", I much prefer listening to a professional guy with a good voice and who brings excitement. Of course I still like many "analytic casters" because it just so happens that they are professional, exciting and have a good voice.
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.
Why would you watch a strategy game with no idea about strategy and with casters that don't help you understand?
A caster can be there for the complete noobs. It's not just us people who watch all the time. I didn't really understand that until I saw a DOTA2 Cast when I was new to that.
Catering to noobs and being a noob do not go hand in hand. A caster can be knowledgeable and also accessible. Day9 and Apollo are both really good at this, and Tasteless often pretends to know less than he does in order to teach people about the game. Overall, it's better to have the knowledge than not, so you can make everyone happy.
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?
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.
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're the asshat here. I never said I was asking for detailed predictions of builds based on recent metagame tendencies, but when they're criticizing a player for doing something that even bronze level players would understand, it means they're making players look worse than they are while misinforming said casual audience.
"The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period." That's laughable. They aren't speaking with any fluidity, they aren't piggybacking off of each other well, they're enthusiastic at awkward times and silent at the times when they should be drawing attention to something. It doesn't sound professional...watch any sport commentator, watch Artosis, TB, listen to the radio. Those are people that know how to speak to an audience (that's professional), and these guys just don't have that.
They are not catering to the casual well at all. They aren't describing what units do, what makes these players good, any sort of thought process, or any general principles of the game even. What have they been giving the audience?
"OH THE QUEENS GONNA DIE....nvm it didnt. NVM IT DID."
"He's building an infestation pit, which means he's going to build infestors." (it was swarm hosts)
Parroting exactly what everyone can plainly see on the screen throughout the entire game is not good commentary, regardless of who the audience is. Talk about what they're hoping to accomplish with units and how the opposing player decides to react.
Basically what they're doing are naming things that they see while trying to take an analytical style without the knowledge. Husky, day9, and HD catered to casuals well. This isn't it.
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.
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.
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're the asshat here. I never said I was asking for detailed predictions of builds based on recent metagame tendencies, but when they're criticizing a player for doing something that even bronze level players would understand, it means they're making players look worse than they are while misinforming said casual audience.
"The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period." That's laughable. They aren't speaking with any fluidity, they aren't piggybacking off of each other well, they're enthusiastic at awkward times and silent at the times when they should be drawing attention to something. It doesn't sound professional...watch any sport commentator, watch Artosis, TB, listen to the radio. Those are people that know how to speak to an audience (that's professional), and these guys just don't have that.
They are not catering to the casual well at all. They aren't describing what units do, what makes these players good, any sort of thought process, or any general principles of the game even. What have they been giving the audience?
"OH THE QUEENS GONNA DIE....nvm it didnt. NVM IT DID."
"He's building an infestation pit, which means he's going to build infestors." (it was swarm hosts)
Parroting exactly what everyone can plainly see on the screen throughout the entire game is not good commentary, regardless of who the audience is.
Of course, examples here are hyperbolic and absolutely not direct quotes, nor could the possibly even represent any one factual event. You've dove your argument into the circular logic of "nuh uh, this is what happened."
I need not continue a conversation with such peasantry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
However, this is nowhere near the most professional version of what you're describing.
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're the asshat here. I never said I was asking for detailed predictions of builds based on recent metagame tendencies, but when they're criticizing a player for doing something that even bronze level players would understand, it means they're making players look worse than they are while misinforming said casual audience.
"The commentary is far and away the most professional I've ever heard in pro-gaming, period." That's laughable. They aren't speaking with any fluidity, they aren't piggybacking off of each other well, they're enthusiastic at awkward times and silent at the times when they should be drawing attention to something. It doesn't sound professional...watch any sport commentator, watch Artosis, TB, listen to the radio. Those are people that know how to speak to an audience (that's professional), and these guys just don't have that.
They are not catering to the casual well at all. They aren't describing what units do, what makes these players good, any sort of thought process, or any general principles of the game even. What have they been giving the audience?
"OH THE QUEENS GONNA DIE....nvm it didnt. NVM IT DID."
"He's building an infestation pit, which means he's going to build infestors." (it was swarm hosts)
Parroting exactly what everyone can plainly see on the screen throughout the entire game is not good commentary, regardless of who the audience is.
Of course, examples here are hyperbolic and absolutely not direct quotes, nor could the possibly even represent any one factual event. You've dove your argument into the circular logic of "nuh uh, this is what happened."
I need not continue a conversation with such peasantry.
The first quote was pretty close to what they said and the second was a direct quote.
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.
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.
However, this is nowhere near the most professional version of what you're describing.
Attaching to a hyperbole and calling foul on word-choice is short-bus as hell.
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.
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?
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.
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.
On March 24 2013 20:01 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
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.
On March 24 2013 20:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
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.
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
On March 24 2013 20:01 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
On March 24 2013 20:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
Oh, you're obviously smart. You can use complicated words, after all.
On March 24 2013 20:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
On March 24 2013 20:04 DarkLordOlli wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
On March 24 2013 20:08 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
Oh, you're obviously smart. You can use complicated words, after all.
On March 24 2013 20:08 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
How have you survived for 180 posts on this site?
The hunched, unwashed, masses aren't part of a democracy?
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.
So given that you believe that "one's intelligence, or lack thereof, being on display" is the case right now, you admit you annoy people with your posts? I think you know that those are not the posts that people like to see, which means you are kind of a jerk on purpose. Is there something else you want to get across with your posts? If yes, may I suggest you collect everything you want this thread to know in one single post instead of leaving traces of information shattered over multiple posts and pages. You can always edit if you forgot something
On March 24 2013 20:08 IMMABEASTBRUH wrote: [quote]
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.
Please get out of this thread :D Calling people idiots isn't making you seem smarter.
They're on to me! If only random nerds thought I was smart!
Don't worry, we don't
And this is it - the moment I realized I'm not liked, cool, OR smart.
On March 24 2013 20:41 PixelNite wrote: Haha according to MrJeng on twitch chat, Hero said he is the ace because he lost at rock paper scissors but he isn't confident
On March 24 2013 20:38 arcane1129 wrote: About Major, yeah I'm hoping he does well and gets play in pl. He's been one of the best foreigners for quite a while but doesn't get the attention.
What makes you believe he is "one of the best foreigners"?
On March 24 2013 20:38 arcane1129 wrote: About Major, yeah I'm hoping he does well and gets play in pl. He's been one of the best foreigners for quite a while but doesn't get the attention.
What makes you believe he is "one of the best foreigners"?
for me it's that all the foreigners say that he's one of the best foreigners. I can't wait to see him myself.
On March 24 2013 20:38 arcane1129 wrote: About Major, yeah I'm hoping he does well and gets play in pl. He's been one of the best foreigners for quite a while but doesn't get the attention.
What makes you believe he is "one of the best foreigners"?
Idra doesn't hate him
But seriously a lot of the foreigners say he may be the best foreign terran, he was good enough for team 8 to pick him up, and I personally have always been impressed with his play when he's streamed.
On March 24 2013 20:38 arcane1129 wrote: About Major, yeah I'm hoping he does well and gets play in pl. He's been one of the best foreigners for quite a while but doesn't get the attention.
What makes you believe he is "one of the best foreigners"?
On March 24 2013 20:38 arcane1129 wrote: About Major, yeah I'm hoping he does well and gets play in pl. He's been one of the best foreigners for quite a while but doesn't get the attention.
What makes you believe he is "one of the best foreigners"?
I dont know man, pretty sure before major moved to korea, he was widely regarded as the best player on the entire na server (scarlett was not getting much credit at that point), and the best foreigner terran alongside kas/thorzain. Now this may not be much in terms of global skill level, he was at the time as good a terran as foreigners could hope for. I think you may have missed it, but one of the best foreigners definetly applies.
On March 24 2013 20:38 arcane1129 wrote: About Major, yeah I'm hoping he does well and gets play in pl. He's been one of the best foreigners for quite a while but doesn't get the attention.
What makes you believe he is "one of the best foreigners"?
I dont know man, pretty sure before major moved to korea, he was widely regarded as the best player on the entire na server (scarlett was not getting much credit at that point), and the best foreigner terran alongside kas/thorzain. Now this may not be much in terms of global skill level, he was at the time as good a terran as foreigners could hope for. I think you may have missed it, but one of the best foreigners definetly applies.
The most important thing for me is that Major has always had the motivation to try to get on korean level.
mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind Mind mind mind mind mind mind
On March 24 2013 21:23 Maesy wrote: Casters praising Terminator on good defense when Major has his 3rd established now when Terminator hasn't even started his.
On March 24 2013 21:23 Maesy wrote: Casters praising Terminator on good defense when Major has his 3rd established now when Terminator hasn't even started his.
On March 24 2013 21:23 Maesy wrote: Casters praising Terminator on good defense when Major has his 3rd established now when Terminator hasn't even started his.
Who is casting with Whiplash today?
It says in the OP. Jason Lee. ._.
Yeah I saw it, I should have said who is Jason Lee? >< Should I know who he is?
overaggressive and not quick with the upgrades. denies 3rd for a while but terminator just builds his solid core army and gets an upgrade lead, and with the hidden 3rd this should be over pretty soon. :/
On March 24 2013 21:23 Maesy wrote: Casters praising Terminator on good defense when Major has his 3rd established now when Terminator hasn't even started his.
Who is casting with Whiplash today?
It says in the OP. Jason Lee. ._.
Yeah I saw it, I should have said who is Jason Lee? >< Should I know who he is?
Caster from old GSLs, I believe he casts like other eSports games? I'm not too sure. Maybe he's a mainstream English guy, he doesnt seem to have a full grasp of the korean language.
On March 24 2013 21:30 Pyre wrote: Good engagement for major but not enough
Fighting on top of cannons is a good engagement?
dodged all the storms, got the emps down and avoided collosi splash
Sorry but that wasn't really a good engagement at all. I'd re-watch it if I were you because there was a lot of shit that happened. Including a lot of ghosts going bye bye.
On March 24 2013 21:38 Boonbag wrote: People dislike proleague because they dislike the intellectual shape of playing high level formating of the game.
aka It doesn't look like the game, but more an abstract competition of it.
People don't like the feeling of kespa house work in how games are diaplayed and unfold.
On March 24 2013 21:38 Boonbag wrote: People dislike proleague because they dislike the intellectual shape of playing high level formating of the game.
aka It doesn't look like the game, but more an abstract competition of it.
People don't like the feeling of kespa house work in how games are diaplayed and unfold.
way to generalise, i don't think that's the main complaint about PL at all
On March 24 2013 21:38 Boonbag wrote: People dislike proleague because they dislike the intellectual shape of playing high level formating of the game.
aka It doesn't look like the game, but more an abstract competition of it.
People don't like the feeling of kespa house work in how games are diaplayed and unfold.
Yeah speak for yourself please lol. That's the most absurd notion i've ever heard.
On March 24 2013 21:38 Boonbag wrote: People dislike proleague because they dislike the intellectual shape of playing high level formating of the game.
aka It doesn't look like the game, but more an abstract competition of it.
People don't like the feeling of kespa house work in how games are diaplayed and unfold.
Yeah speak for yourself please lol. That's the most absurd notion i've ever heard.
Don't question him he was speaking on behalf of the people.
heh He said the attack was scary. I had that happen on ladder and thought OMG IM SO DEAD then defend it with losing like nothing. So must say he's right lol..
Side note... Do wish there was translations I can't translate most of it myself
On March 24 2013 21:38 Boonbag wrote: People dislike proleague because they dislike the intellectual shape of playing high level formating of the game.
aka It doesn't look like the game, but more an abstract competition of it.
People don't like the feeling of kespa house work in how games are diaplayed and unfold.
On March 24 2013 21:38 Boonbag wrote: People dislike proleague because they dislike the intellectual shape of playing high level formating of the game.
aka It doesn't look like the game, but more an abstract competition of it.
People don't like the feeling of kespa house work in how games are diaplayed and unfold.
Yeah speak for yourself please lol. That's the most absurd notion i've ever heard.
I meant that what foreign tournaments for foreign audiences look more like sunday wrestling shows on tv, and that proleague format in Korea looks more like a classic competition in sports (such as fencing).
I'm gonna ask again... anyone know where that song is called/where it's from/who made it? I'm still going through the google search results of "Mind mind mind mind"...
On March 24 2013 22:02 Boonbag wrote: I meant that what foreign tournaments for foreign audiences look more like sunday wrestling shows on tv, and that proleague format in Korea looks more like a classic competition in sports (such as fencing).
I too prefer the intellectual shape of abstract competition.
On March 24 2013 22:02 Boonbag wrote: I meant that what foreign tournaments for foreign audiences look more like sunday wrestling shows on tv, and that proleague format in Korea looks more like a classic competition in sports (such as fencing).
I too prefer the intellectual shape of abstract competition.
that was a way of describing in pro team house team work towards preparing one game.
On March 24 2013 22:02 Boonbag wrote: I meant that what foreign tournaments for foreign audiences look more like sunday wrestling shows on tv, and that proleague format in Korea looks more like a classic competition in sports (such as fencing).
I too prefer the intellectual shape of abstract competition.
On March 24 2013 22:03 NicksonReyes wrote: I'm gonna ask again... anyone know where that song is called/where it's from/who made it? I'm still going through the google search results of "Mind mind mind mind"...
On March 24 2013 22:03 NicksonReyes wrote: I'm gonna ask again... anyone know where that song is called/where it's from/who made it? I'm still going through the google search results of "Mind mind mind mind"...
On March 24 2013 22:21 UnKooL wrote: what was free's opener and how did he get ahead?
Proxy SG, 14 kills in 2 sec .
he waited for 2 oracles? and sent both to main mineral line?
The first one went straight in the mineral line and did 8 kills and we didn't catch the second one but I guess he did the same . Also note that Bogus army was out of position because he tried to put pressure with a few squad of marines and 1 mine .
thats what happens if you don't make a turret.. coincidentally, Free made a cannon to stop what would of been 14+ widow mine kills in his main. HotS is all about cutting down on people who take "risks" that actually were not risks in WoL
On March 24 2013 22:26 SnowfaLL wrote: thats what happens if you don't make a turret.. coincidentally, Free made a cannon to stop what would of been 14+ widow mine kills in his main. HotS is all about cutting down on people who take "risks" that actually were not risks in WoL
I love hots.
the game so far has been a better watching experience overall yes
edit : as in people now seem they can actually die at one point to something, rather than slowly decaying within the game until defeat
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bT8uicy.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/r9ZH0.png)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/7/7f/Twitch_ico.png)
twitch.tv![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KSnJ5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LBr19.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jiTad.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w5ZUDRY.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QPUAjoD.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1cvYKN6.jpg)
ZerO <Akilon Wastes> 
JangBi![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bv8Kw.png)
Light <Bel'Shir Vestige> ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L5xSY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ufhoR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N4QP5Co.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VfhUp6u.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3wcCS.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/userfiles/268899.gif?1364117192)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2bXYuKC.png)
(2.5.61)
![[image loading]](http://tau.rghost.ru/44728954/image.png)
