On April 25 2013 17:54 ThreeByThree wrote: I think it might be a good idea for Artosis to make a short comment on what happened between him and JP. The community not knowing anything seems to just stoke the fires of speculation.
At the end of the first show he talks a bit about it.Not a lot, but there is still some information to get.
and what did he say?
Artosis want Meta to focus more on in-depth game discussions and less on drama around the game.
Which is ironic, since this first show is pretty much identical to recent SotG
I don't have a problem with his goal though, but I think the show structure should be improved towards that direction.
For example, you now have 4 skilled players as hosts. Take advantage of that. Let's say you're discussing a particular build. Let all the hosts join a replay of that build, and discuss away. Hell, you can try "resume from replay" to have some fun among the hosts as well!
I enjoyed the show, however, I could only listen to it. This was a problem since a lot of the discussion required the listener to have the same visual information as the panel. I think going forward I would enjoy the show more if, for example, the panel talks about specific groups at a tournament they actually mention who is in each group.
Otherwise, keep up the good work and I am looking forward to the next show.
On April 24 2013 10:04 Artosis wrote: Also, my vision is for a show that has progamers talking about the actual games played, strategies used, metagame changes, etc, with not as much news/drama/etc. As the show moves forward I will continue to try to zoom in on these areas and improve the content.
This is great news! I've always enjoyed those topics on other shows the most, though they were sometimes unfortunately underfeatured in favor of drama and other crap.
2 cent suggestion: I think going over what happened in a group after it's over is 100x as interesting as trying to predict it beforehand.
Really good show. Only problem I had was when you switched from showing the WCS groups to the web cams, sometimes I wanted to be able to look at it more (there were so many players)
On April 26 2013 01:07 Thor.Rush wrote: Really good show. Only problem I had was when you switched from showing the WCS groups to the web cams, sometimes I wanted to be able to look at it more (there were so many players)
I agree. Stop switching from the brackets. When you're talking about them just leave it on them. I ended up bringing them up myself.
On April 26 2013 04:24 Vallros wrote: This feels really uncomfortable and I couldn't really enjoy the show at all. It seems like Artosis stole the show that JP built up from scratch
from scratch u mean by riding the coattails of programers?
Just a random idea, but since the show is supposed to be about strategies and the metagame: could you perhaps have a guests replay of the week segment. Ask each of your guests to submit their favorite replay from the last week (from a ladder game they played) and just post the rar file with 3 or 4 replays each week. You would not have to spend a lot of time talking about it, just a quick "my replay shows why I think battlecruiser rushing is the new big thing".
On April 26 2013 04:24 Vallros wrote: This feels really uncomfortable and I couldn't really enjoy the show at all. It seems like Artosis stole the show that JP built up from scratch
from scratch u mean by riding the coattails of programers?
On April 26 2013 04:36 Klipsys wrote: Is it possible for people to forgo drama and just focus on helping Artosis improve the show?
im all for that. but we have this idiots posting how "uncomfortable" it was to watch because of their giant twats.
No, no it's because we have people saying jp did nothing besides riding the coat tails of pro gamers.
People who have no clue at all what's going on and feel some need to voice their opinions on a subject that is so trivial and pointless. Let's just enoy the fact that there are now two shows that are going to have awesome content for us.
On April 25 2013 23:28 TimENT wrote: ARTOSIS! Make sure there is another one of these before the RO16 starts! We want to hear everyones predictions
Disagree. Predictions are definitely the biggest waste of time. Even in the best circumstances, with lots of background info on each player, it's still extremely difficult to predict how it will play out. The little bit of introduction that commentators do before each match is plenty. It doesn't belong on an analysis show. And as for judging players' skill against each other, why waste time doing that when they're just about to play a match in order to determine who is better. That's the worst time to do it. Don't sink time into predicting what players will do when there already isn't enough time to analyze everything that players have actually done.
On April 25 2013 23:28 TimENT wrote: ARTOSIS! Make sure there is another one of these before the RO16 starts! We want to hear everyones predictions
Disagree. Predictions are definitely the biggest waste of time. Even in the best circumstances, with lots of background info on each player, it's still extremely difficult to predict how it will play out. The little bit of introduction that commentators do before each match is plenty. It doesn't belong on an analysis show. And as for judging players' skill against each other, why waste time doing that when they're just about to play a match in order to determine who is better. That's the worst time to do it. Don't sink time into predicting what players will do when there already isn't enough time to analyze everything that players have actually done.
Generally I'd agree with you, but the predictions are actually one of the only ways for people to be held accountable for their beliefs about the current state of the game. It's super easy to pick out a replay / game and armchair theorycraft or overgeneralize without ever having to back up your opinions with substantial evidence (which is what largely comprises metagame analysis on shows like these). And seeing how this is a show that's supposed to be less about fluff, I think that it's really important to dedicate a substantial portion of the show to, you know, things that can be validated / proven false.
Obviously there's ways that people can disingenuously justify bad predictions, but in general it's important that people put themselves out there and be vulnerable. I agree that it probably shouldn't comprise the bulk of the show, but it's super important that they're done.
On April 25 2013 23:28 TimENT wrote: ARTOSIS! Make sure there is another one of these before the RO16 starts! We want to hear everyones predictions
Disagree. Predictions are definitely the biggest waste of time. Even in the best circumstances, with lots of background info on each player, it's still extremely difficult to predict how it will play out. The little bit of introduction that commentators do before each match is plenty. It doesn't belong on an analysis show. And as for judging players' skill against each other, why waste time doing that when they're just about to play a match in order to determine who is better. That's the worst time to do it. Don't sink time into predicting what players will do when there already isn't enough time to analyze everything that players have actually done.
It creates hype which is everything. I am also sure talkshows could ask tournament organizers for payment in order to make these predictions as the organizers benefit by quite a bit from it.
On April 25 2013 23:28 TimENT wrote: ARTOSIS! Make sure there is another one of these before the RO16 starts! We want to hear everyones predictions
Disagree. Predictions are definitely the biggest waste of time. Even in the best circumstances, with lots of background info on each player, it's still extremely difficult to predict how it will play out. The little bit of introduction that commentators do before each match is plenty. It doesn't belong on an analysis show. And as for judging players' skill against each other, why waste time doing that when they're just about to play a match in order to determine who is better. That's the worst time to do it. Don't sink time into predicting what players will do when there already isn't enough time to analyze everything that players have actually done.
Generally I'd agree with you, but the predictions are actually one of the only ways for people to be held accountable for their beliefs about the current state of the game. It's super easy to pick out a replay / game and armchair theorycraft or overgeneralize without ever having to back up your opinions with substantial evidence (which is what largely comprises metagame analysis on shows like these). And seeing how this is a show that's supposed to be less about fluff, I think that it's really important to dedicate a substantial portion of the show to, you know, things that can be validated / proven false.
Obviously there's ways that people can disingenuously justify bad predictions, but in general it's important that people put themselves out there and be vulnerable. I agree that it probably shouldn't comprise the bulk of the show, but it's super important that they're done.
Predictions about strategies are fine. What I'm against is predictions about players, as the guy I was responding to specifically suggested. There's no reason to say something vague like "I think the way Parting plays PvT will counter the way Flash plays TvP" because the result of the match isn't a good test of that assertion. And who cares about that assertion anyway? What we really care about is the way Parting is playing PvT and the way Flash is playing TvP. There's no need to make predictions about which players will beat which players when the discussions can be directly about which strategies are strong against which strategies.
EPT
