|
On October 27 2017 18:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2017 18:45 Poopi wrote:
Yeah, but if for example the articles called out on Rogue for being better than Dark, maybe interviewers could ask Dark about it or stuff like that, so we would be talking about the PR on stream again? Yes and I want people to sit their and argue about how Dark was better that won tournament but just was unlucky cus of cheese and good opponent but since he beat Rogue 2 months ago in an online match he is actually better. Like there are cons and pro's of every player, and I want the Power Rankings to take initative to discuss and weight some of these factors. And based on that "introduction" from the PR, people can argue on how they don't think online results should matter or how in that series it wasn't actually cheese but yadayada. As someone who follows (or has followed) multiple esports I always wonder what the impact of content-creators in the early stages of a games life is on the future type of content we see. And the thing is that we in early Starcraft saw Starcraft content that wasn't revovled around game or player analysis but more about humour and jokes (SOTG example, most people rarely watched the games that were played, mostly in Korea ofc). (Artosis Meta show was actually pretty fucking good though it came at a time where Starcraft was already declining in popularity). If you contrast that to Summoning Insight in LOL which is a type of content that just blew my mind when I initally "transfered" from Starcraft to LOL. It had hosts who watched all (or most) of the games and then discussed it, some times with pro player guests who had extra insight. They developed theories on how good the teams actually were or who the good players were. Obviously there are reasons for why the LOL esport scene is different from the Sc2 scene, but I come to hate how so much content is so balance-foccused in Sc2 and everytime we see "predictions" on talk show it was just "that guy is better so he wins". But I wonder if someone like Montecristo (host of summoning insight) if he had been an expert in Sc2 as well and hosted talkshows in 2011, how that would have impacted future content. In LOL it's my impression that the community wants to read about content that helps them to determine who is actually good or bad in a match. Whereas in Sc2 people don't like criticism over players because "you are worse than them so you aren't allowed to talk (received comments like that multiple times everytime I attempted to do analysis)."
I agree with your post, and with your signature. You may even add "in 2013 and 2017" :D
|
On October 27 2017 18:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +What it also evident is the writers lack range to provide anything mind-opening beyond the usual in-jokes and things we already know about as fans of the sport. Maybe, but they are definitely investing so much time into Starcraft so they could - if they used their ressources differently - actually make that type of content. E.g. I was reading the blog from mintzheyer (spelling?) and how he was making recaps of every game and how much time it took + how he hated it... And I just don't understand... why? Instead if less ressources were spent on those types of tasks and instead more on "I want to make the best prediction on who the best Z player is or who the best European player is. I will watch a ton of vods and make a ton of notes, look at data from aligulac etc." --> Then make a list that goes pretty indepth. Not only would that probably be more fun/rewarding for the content creator, it would probably be content that would be worth sharing (assuming it was high-quality). And if it is too time-consuming to analyze 10 players then limit your self to the 4 best. I think that's the type of content that makes the scene more likely to feel "alive" whereas recaps... I don't know, I am sure they help a bit but it doesn't feel like it adds anything meaningful.
You and I are practically on the same boat, I think I'm just more appreciative of the range of quality perhaps.
But I agree with writers whining about the time and effort it took to write. Honestly, it's not a magnum opus that people will congratulate you about in ages to come. Far from it. We appreciate the effort though, that should be emphasized. So do your job or don't, no need for drama.
|
On October 26 2017 08:33 Twinkle Toes wrote:Poll: Right now, before Blizzcon, is INnoVation GOAT already?No (59) 54% Yes (51) 46% 110 total votes Your vote: Right now, before Blizzcon, is INnoVation GOAT already? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Poll: If INnoVation wins Blizzcon, does he become undisputed GOAT?Yes (76) 68% No (36) 32% 112 total votes Your vote: If INnoVation wins Blizzcon, does he become undisputed GOAT? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
omg, are those 2 people ok!?
Edit: It's spreading!
|
But I agree with writers whining about the time and effort it took to write. Honestly, it's not a magnum opus that people will congratulate you about in ages to come. Far from it. We appreciate the effort though, that should be emphasized. So do your job or don't, no need for drama.
I can still relate to the idea about you putting in a lot of work and not feeling recognized for it at all - perhaps even criticized. It's horrible. Hence that's why I always try to praise people who I see put in good work + valuable content that informs people.
However, the latter is just missing from the TL writing, and it seems that they are stuck in this mindset where they are doing everyone this massive service by writing stuff that not many people care about. Obviously it isn't true that even narrative-based articles or recaps doesn't help the scene at all, but it is probably true that they could never do it again and 95% of the community would be unaffected. And the remaining 5% would probably still be able to sleep at night.
And it is apparent that the TL writing staff with Ollie simply lacks self-reflection. Is what we are doing the correct way? Why don't we take a look at other esports to see how they hype up big events or matces? Is there something we can learn from that?
When I made the comment earlier about TL's writers wanting to be writers rather than analysts I especially thought of this article by Mizenhayer: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/527848-ty-second-sunrise-rank-7-road-to-blizzcon
In my opinion this is the biggest fluff-article I have ever (skim) read. While I mentiond the Rogue article before that article at least tried to inform the viewers about his recent performance w/ a bit about his playstyle as well.
I am not sure what the target group for the TY article is? Is it people who have never followed Starcraft and thus cannot relate to any type of analysis? Is it people who used to watch Starcraft but not anymore? Is it the hardcore fans?
I am not sure either target group really enjoys that type of article. For those who are new to Starcraft you should probably not use any more than 5-6 sentences to convince them why they should watch Ty play this weekend.
And when you post (or is responsible for as editor) these types of articles can you then really complain about how they aren't being spread around? Because what is there to discuss? Articles that are being spread are those with strong and well-defined opinions and ideally also with solid argumention behind them. Fluff has neither.
So while I fucking hate myself for criticizing hard-working volunteers, the truth is also that just because you put in hard work as a writer, that doesn't imply that your content is particularly valueable.
|
This was a really great article, loved it!
|
Great article! Keep up the great content man
|
On October 26 2017 06:12 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Come on INno, time to turn to legend.
tbf, he's already a legend. just not GOAT yet, at least not indisputably.
|
On October 27 2017 14:11 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2017 11:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer. Not true. Life had a frightening peak near the end of WoL too. He was a royal roader for a reason: His Stats GSL, Blizzard Cup (the most rigorous iteration of it too), Iron Squid, and MLG Fall all were won by him between q3 2012 and the q1 2013.
screw that scumbag life. his record isn't worth a discussion and should all be vacated.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On October 28 2017 05:46 ryuhayabusa69xtc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2017 14:11 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:On October 27 2017 11:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer. Not true. Life had a frightening peak near the end of WoL too. He was a royal roader for a reason: His Stats GSL, Blizzard Cup (the most rigorous iteration of it too), Iron Squid, and MLG Fall all were won by him between q3 2012 and the q1 2013. screw that scumbag life. his record isn't worth a discussion and should all be vacated.
Scumbag or not, his record is just as worthy of discussing as saviOr's was (and remains). You can discuss past performances without excusing anything.
|
On October 28 2017 06:24 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2017 05:46 ryuhayabusa69xtc wrote:On October 27 2017 14:11 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:On October 27 2017 11:04 Twinkle Toes wrote:
On topic, are people still seriously considering Life as a goat candidate? He had a meteoric HOTS run yeah, but thats it. MVP and INno especially have done better far longer. Not true. Life had a frightening peak near the end of WoL too. He was a royal roader for a reason: His Stats GSL, Blizzard Cup (the most rigorous iteration of it too), Iron Squid, and MLG Fall all were won by him between q3 2012 and the q1 2013. screw that scumbag life. his record isn't worth a discussion and should all be vacated. Scumbag or not, his record is just as worthy of discussing as saviOr's was (and remains). You can discuss past performances without excusing anything.
Yeah man, wtf with this tendancy of dismissing a player results because of mistakes (or crime, don't care about how you want to call them), it was still one of the most gifted players that touched this game... In french History many tends to dismiss Napoleon III because he was an Emperor, and the IIIrd Republic which followed him insisted upon that, and upon his military defeat against Bismark. But the man modernised the country, really fast and it allowed France to enter the XXth century (meanwhile the IIIrd republic hold the grudge against Germany... until 1914)..
But still the point is, that Life may have commit huge mistakes, he still was that skilled player.
|
On October 27 2017 18:19 Poopi wrote:
The ladder thing seems like a double standard to me, when ByuN was destroying both ladder and aligulac before winning GSL + blizzcon, people didn't acknowledge it because they didn't like his playstyle.
When it is Rogue it's even used as an argument by TL writers, weird.
And yeah, since this is a PR an explanation on why Rogue is a better zerg than Dark atm would be interesting, same for INno vs TY, or why TY>Gumiho in spite of Gumiho GSL win.
The content of the articles are nice to read but it doesn't bring anything new to those who follow sc2 regularly indeed.
Not true. When Byun rocked ladder everyone with a little bit of brain knew he was good. It was just not made official because old arguments are slow to die off. Most people are afraid to be controversial and to admit that ladder matters now whereas in the past it didn't as much. (Caution: Hindsight Bias)
Even solar was rated highly based on his ladder rank at the start of LotV. Guess what? He won the first tournament.
The thing you have to understand is that not only the peak ladder rank matters, but like how long or how the rank was achieved. E.g. Byun in his prime never lost a game on ladder. Or Rogue is in top 10 with multiple accounts for an extended period.
It's not a causality, but a correlation. Achieving rank 1 doesn't make you better at SC2. But if you are good, you will reach a higher rank automatically. And that's good enough to take ladder rank as an indicator. This is especially true for SC2 since you train so many automated responses/mechanics, that your "passive skill" is important (I would guess > 90% of your skill, the remaining 10 % would be: ability to withstand mental pressure, adaptility to situations, etc.).
Of course being rank one doesn't mean tournament wins, but neither does being the best player in the world right now guarantee a tournament win. There's always luck (statistical variance).
As a side note: I really agree with many of the comments here. I really do appreciate the articles. Another flavor of writing/writing style would make it even more interesting for me. (Just an opinion).
|
After all the negative feedback in this thread I just want to say that I'm glad olli writes so many articles for the community. We don't have a huge amount of content creators in this community the fact that he is willing to put in the time and effort to make these articles deserves respect. I love reading articles on tl. Thank you for making them Olli.
|
The Road to blizzcon is stacked af in his bracket
|
On October 30 2017 19:04 Mun_Su wrote:
The Road to blizzcon is stacked af in his bracket
I think an appropriate test for him on the road to GOAT
|
On October 30 2017 21:57 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 19:04 Mun_Su wrote:
The Road to blizzcon is stacked af in his bracket I think an appropriate test for him on the road to GOAT
I think he had the best year ever... near 80% winrate i n offline match since last december...
|
INno should cheer for soO and Rogue, so he is the GOAT then 
|
On October 31 2017 01:10 DieuCure wrote:INno should cheer for soO and Rogue, so he is the GOAT then
In his best days, Rogue could beat INno in a series
|
A bit OT, but with regards to Sc2 journalism and narratives that has been repeated one time too many, a story that hasn't really been told before is why MMA vs DRG game 5 of the GSTL finals in 2011 is the greatest games in the history of Starcraft!
I consider writing a lenghty article about it, but to make it relatively brief; it featured two players who had innovated the TvZ/ZvT matchups over the previous months and were (arguably) considered the second best player for their race at the time the game took place - MVP and Nestea were #1.
Their innovations to the meta were not just a short-term gimmick; It continued to impact how the matchups would be played over the next year!
And in this game you get the two playstyles clahing up against each other in the deciding game in the GSTL finals. What more could you wish for? A great game? Yes and you definitely got that. Given its time-period it was rare to find any games that had so much back-and-forth action while showing high level of mechanical skills.
I think there is room to tell this story more indepth and you could write about how the whole meta in TvZ changed from to 2010 to 2012 in relation to the playstyles of MMA and DRG.
For those who are interested in the history of Starcraft 2, this is the best story that has never been told.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I think you should be posting this in another thread, not the place for it here.
|
On October 31 2017 21:00 BigFan wrote:
I think you should be posting this in another thread, not the place for it here.
There isn't any thread where this post wold make sense and I don't want to start a new thread. It's just something that has been on my mind for a lot of years: how amazing his story is and why - if any - narrative deserves to be repeated, this is one.
And the context here is Sc2 journalism/writing in general hence why it seemed the most appropriate (out of no good alternatives). Because compared to all of the narratives that has been told over and over, you could write so much interesting stuff about the development of the TvZ meta to 2010 and 2012 while referincing this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
