|
On September 26 2010 06:53 ZidaneTribal wrote:
people saying that ultralisk's bug has nothing to do with vsing units, it does. otherwise scvs wouldnt get raped when repairing a PF. u can also see that the amount of splash those ultras were dealing against those bunched up thor at zerg's natural seemed too big. thors in the middle or back of the clump were damaged by an ultra attacking a front thor
No, the bug does not effect units. As in, when the Ultra attacks a unit it works the exact same way it used to before 1.1.
The change bugged so when attacking a CC or Nexus it makes the splash way too big. Only on Buildings does the splash get abnormally big.
XOOU
X being the Ultra, O's being Thors, and U being a SCV. The SCV would still get hit before 1.1. It's been like this since Beta.
|
thanks for taking the time to translate.
|
Wow, great post thanks very much sir!
|
This game was so epic and inspiring. Thank you Cool, Top and Gomtv for the awesome show!
|
Man... Korean commentators are fucking thorough.
|
I have never heard this level of commentary in English. Even if the commentator reviews the game beforehand.
|
Thank you so much for translating this. That is an extremely good post game analysis by the commentator!
|
On September 26 2010 06:57 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 06:53 ZidaneTribal wrote:
people saying that ultralisk's bug has nothing to do with vsing units, it does. otherwise scvs wouldnt get raped when repairing a PF. u can also see that the amount of splash those ultras were dealing against those bunched up thor at zerg's natural seemed too big. thors in the middle or back of the clump were damaged by an ultra attacking a front thor No, the bug does not effect units. As in, when the Ultra attacks a unit it works the exact same way it used to before 1.1. The change bugged so when attacking a CC or Nexus it makes the splash way too big. Only on Buildings does the splash get abnormally big. XOOU X being the Ultra, O's being Thors, and U being a SCV. The SCV would still get hit before 1.1. It's been like this since Beta.
Ultra splash is the same as before. Here is why it seems more ridiculous though.
Lets say thor is a radius 1.5 unit ( i am not sure what it is). Ultra splash does unit radius +2 splash. So that's a circle of radius 3.5, or area of pi * 3.5^2.
Now lets assume the PF has radius of 4 which I believe is true. Ultras will now splash at radius of 6 just like the formula before. However let's look at the area, i.e how many units are hit.
A = pi*6^2.
This is 6^2/3.5^2 ~ 3. That is going from a radius of 1.5 -> 4 causes the area affected to actually increase by a factor of 3, not 2. This is why it seems so much more powerful. however the formula is the same.
|
On September 26 2010 07:44 blacktoss wrote:
I have never heard this level of commentary in English. Even if the commentator reviews the game beforehand.
That is because this is analysis and not commentary. Analysis is not entertaining for most people, commentary is.
Think of it like the difference between day9 doing his daily and day9 doing a live cast of a tournament game. One is analysis (the daily), the other is commentary (the tournament cast).
|
Analysis is done after the game and you are able to study it more. Commentary can provide insight but its much more difficult to both cast the game and think deeply about what's going on. After seeing the whole game and knowing the outcome you can start to discover things. Commentators won't be able to be this indepth in a live game unless its a situation they've analyzed before.
|
On September 26 2010 07:59 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 07:44 blacktoss wrote:
I have never heard this level of commentary in English. Even if the commentator reviews the game beforehand. That is because this is analysis and not commentary. Analysis is not entertaining for most people, commentary is. Think of it like the difference between day9 doing his daily and day9 doing a live cast of a tournament game. One is analysis (the daily), the other is commentary (the tournament cast).
One is him explaining what's going on in a thoughtful manner, the other is him going "OMG this player did this and now OMG the other player is doing that!!!". If english sc commentators actually knew how to be exciting like sports commentators or korean sc commentators, then yeah it'd be fine, but instead they seem to think that speaking like 14 year old girls and dropping f-bombs is a valid substitute.
If they can't be exciting I'd much rather they either try to be informative like whoever wrote the OP, or charismatic like CholeraSC. How I miss CholeraSC, they should fire tastless/artosis and hire him instead (even if he has disappered...).
|
On September 26 2010 07:56 Lunares wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 06:57 Seam wrote:On September 26 2010 06:53 ZidaneTribal wrote:
people saying that ultralisk's bug has nothing to do with vsing units, it does. otherwise scvs wouldnt get raped when repairing a PF. u can also see that the amount of splash those ultras were dealing against those bunched up thor at zerg's natural seemed too big. thors in the middle or back of the clump were damaged by an ultra attacking a front thor No, the bug does not effect units. As in, when the Ultra attacks a unit it works the exact same way it used to before 1.1. The change bugged so when attacking a CC or Nexus it makes the splash way too big. Only on Buildings does the splash get abnormally big. XOOU X being the Ultra, O's being Thors, and U being a SCV. The SCV would still get hit before 1.1. It's been like this since Beta. Ultra splash is the same as before. Here is why it seems more ridiculous though. Lets say thor is a radius 1.5 unit ( i am not sure what it is). Ultra splash does unit radius +2 splash. So that's a circle of radius 3.5, or area of pi * 3.5^2. Now lets assume the PF has radius of 4 which I believe is true. Ultras will now splash at radius of 6 just like the formula before. However let's look at the area, i.e how many units are hit. A = pi*6^2. This is 6^2/3.5^2 ~ 3. That is going from a radius of 1.5 -> 4 causes the area affected to actually increase by a factor of 3, not 2. This is why it seems so much more powerful. however the formula is the same.
I dont think the PF has a radius of 4... perhaps you mean a diameter of 4? The ultra does have a splash range of the edge of the unit +2 range though. I imagine they forgot to change the splash target to the middle when they put the patch out. Curious how they will fix this since the current splash radius makes them strong against thor, but if they fix it to be the middle like a siege tank (which doesnt hit SCV's at all when hitting a building) then itll be a lot weaker.
|
Great analysis, i'm glad this was translated.
On the ultra splash, it is ridiculous at this time. When Cool takes out the 11o'clock and the 9o'clock gold, you can see the TURRETS getting taken out by the splash. I don't believe this would have changed that outcome at that point, but it was pretty shocking to watch, and it could make a big difference in a closer game. By the time the ultras were out and the 12-15 thor push was dead, it was a slow death for terran. Cool could have ended the game much more efficiently by not throwing away his 1st and 2nd batch of ultras.
|
On September 26 2010 08:07 attackfighter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 07:59 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 26 2010 07:44 blacktoss wrote:
I have never heard this level of commentary in English. Even if the commentator reviews the game beforehand. That is because this is analysis and not commentary. Analysis is not entertaining for most people, commentary is. Think of it like the difference between day9 doing his daily and day9 doing a live cast of a tournament game. One is analysis (the daily), the other is commentary (the tournament cast). One is him explaining what's going on in a thoughtful manner, the other is him going "OMG this player did this and now OMG the other player is doing that!!!". If english sc commentators actually knew how to be exciting like sports commentators or korean sc commentators, then yeah it'd be fine, but instead they seem to think that speaking like 14 year old girls and dropping f-bombs is a valid substitute. If they can't be exciting I'd much rather they either try to be informative like whoever wrote the OP, or charismatic like CholeraSC. How I miss CholeraSC, they should fire tastless/artosis and hire him instead (even if he has disappered...).
Sports commentators do the same thing that artosis and tasteless are doing. I dont speak korean, so I dont know what they are doing. Sports commentators also have the advantage of just cutting to a commercial when there is a lull in the game (ie: a timeout, change of possession etc) while for SC they need to maintain commentary. Also, slipping one f bomb once and you hammer him about it? Seriously?
Analysis is done after the game and you are able to study it more. Commentary can provide insight but its much more difficult to both cast the game and think deeply about what's going on. After seeing the whole game and knowing the outcome you can start to discover things. Commentators won't be able to be this indepth in a live game unless its a situation they've analyzed before.
I am not a great player, but when I watch games (and have done test commentary) I think that you can analyze quite a lot. It isnt as entertaining though because instead of making a joke or doing something entertaining, you go into a dry analysis of what he is planning to do.
|
On September 26 2010 08:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 08:07 attackfighter wrote:On September 26 2010 07:59 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 26 2010 07:44 blacktoss wrote:
I have never heard this level of commentary in English. Even if the commentator reviews the game beforehand. That is because this is analysis and not commentary. Analysis is not entertaining for most people, commentary is. Think of it like the difference between day9 doing his daily and day9 doing a live cast of a tournament game. One is analysis (the daily), the other is commentary (the tournament cast). One is him explaining what's going on in a thoughtful manner, the other is him going "OMG this player did this and now OMG the other player is doing that!!!". If english sc commentators actually knew how to be exciting like sports commentators or korean sc commentators, then yeah it'd be fine, but instead they seem to think that speaking like 14 year old girls and dropping f-bombs is a valid substitute. If they can't be exciting I'd much rather they either try to be informative like whoever wrote the OP, or charismatic like CholeraSC. How I miss CholeraSC, they should fire tastless/artosis and hire him instead (even if he has disappered...). Sports commentators do the same thing that artosis and tasteless are doing. I dont speak korean, so I dont know what they are doing. Sports commentators also have the advantage of just cutting to a commercial when there is a lull in the game (ie: a timeout, change of possession etc) while for SC they need to maintain commentary. Also, slipping one f bomb once and you hammer him about it? Seriously? Show nested quote +Analysis is done after the game and you are able to study it more. Commentary can provide insight but its much more difficult to both cast the game and think deeply about what's going on. After seeing the whole game and knowing the outcome you can start to discover things. Commentators won't be able to be this indepth in a live game unless its a situation they've analyzed before. I am not a great player, but when I watch games (and have done test commentary) I think that you can analyze quite a lot. It isnt as entertaining though because instead of making a joke or doing something entertaining, you go into a dry analysis of what he is planning to do.
Ya I'm sure plenty of other commentators spend 90% of their time repeating 'this game is very high level' over and over again, making immature jokes and plugging their dumb websites all the time 'that player is a handsome nerd... btw check out my website called the handomse nerd'.
They are BAD commentators, youtube commentators are better, as they are more focused on the game and provide better colour commentary (and face it no english commentator provides any sort of meaningful insight, the closest we get is tasteless calling players "shittle" and then congradulating himself for making that joke up).
|
I agree that this level of analysis seems to be a step above what I've seen from the likes of Day[9] - if we are to regard him as the pinnacle of English commentary.
However, I would also like to note that it is much easier to be thorough when you have a chance to sit down and write it up as opposed to casting it live (the daily).
I got the chills reading the analysis. It was great.
|
On September 26 2010 08:24 attackfighter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2010 08:15 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 26 2010 08:07 attackfighter wrote:On September 26 2010 07:59 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 26 2010 07:44 blacktoss wrote:
I have never heard this level of commentary in English. Even if the commentator reviews the game beforehand. That is because this is analysis and not commentary. Analysis is not entertaining for most people, commentary is. Think of it like the difference between day9 doing his daily and day9 doing a live cast of a tournament game. One is analysis (the daily), the other is commentary (the tournament cast). One is him explaining what's going on in a thoughtful manner, the other is him going "OMG this player did this and now OMG the other player is doing that!!!". If english sc commentators actually knew how to be exciting like sports commentators or korean sc commentators, then yeah it'd be fine, but instead they seem to think that speaking like 14 year old girls and dropping f-bombs is a valid substitute. If they can't be exciting I'd much rather they either try to be informative like whoever wrote the OP, or charismatic like CholeraSC. How I miss CholeraSC, they should fire tastless/artosis and hire him instead (even if he has disappered...). Sports commentators do the same thing that artosis and tasteless are doing. I dont speak korean, so I dont know what they are doing. Sports commentators also have the advantage of just cutting to a commercial when there is a lull in the game (ie: a timeout, change of possession etc) while for SC they need to maintain commentary. Also, slipping one f bomb once and you hammer him about it? Seriously? Analysis is done after the game and you are able to study it more. Commentary can provide insight but its much more difficult to both cast the game and think deeply about what's going on. After seeing the whole game and knowing the outcome you can start to discover things. Commentators won't be able to be this indepth in a live game unless its a situation they've analyzed before. I am not a great player, but when I watch games (and have done test commentary) I think that you can analyze quite a lot. It isnt as entertaining though because instead of making a joke or doing something entertaining, you go into a dry analysis of what he is planning to do. Ya I'm sure plenty of other commentators spend 90% of their time repeating 'this game is very high level' over and over again, making immature jokes and plugging their dumb websites all the time 'that player is a handsome nerd... btw check out my website called the handomse nerd'. They are BAD commentators, youtube commentators are better, as they are more focused on the game and provide better colour commentary (and face it no english commentator provides any sort of meaningful insight, the closest we get is tasteless calling players "shittle" and then congradulating himself for making that joke up).
If you have a choice of:
a) Being very insightful for 20% of the veiwers, and boring for the other 80% or;
b) Commentating what is currently going on and making jokes during boring parts of the game
Which do you think sells better?
And I've yet to see a commentator be very insightful during a live game, but maybe I've not been watching enough peoples. Usually when I see commentators being insightful, it's during either a replay, or after the game.
|
This is incredible analysis. I hope we can get more of his comments in the future... translated for those of us less proficient in Hangul. I am greatly impressed by his reasonings and breakdowns.
|
Holy crap, the professional commentators are so knowledgeable about the game.
|
Artosis and Tasteless are funny due to bromance and hate for terrans
Korean commentators are funny for "PLAGUUUU AHH PLAGUUUUU and REVAH REVAH REVAH REBA REBA REBA REBA"
Though I think korean would be more fun to watch if I could understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
