Jump to content

Vinme vs Borg- 6 game replays, 20 min~ total


Recommended Posts

@sarcoma- happy to cover a few of the games - if @vinmeis okay with that? Any preference on a particular match?

and

On 04/05/2022 at 2:19 AM, vinme said:

i will post separately, because for some reason comands and metadata can be attached only separately and different ones get mixed up sometimes.

Simplest way around that issue - zip files, dude :) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont see any point of people below 1600 "covering games" from what i have seen of them theres only incorrect info that would harm the spectators understanding or skill.

i suggest being extremely general and objective(purely reacting to occurence), avoid statements, facts, opinions or insights or simply adding "i think" and low player skill disclaimer helps also. 

nevertheless im completely fine with it.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/05/2022 at 3:24 AM, vinme said:

i dont see any point of people below 1600 "covering games" from what i have seen of them theres only incorrect info that would harm the spectators understanding or skill.

i suggest being extremely general and objective(purely reacting to occurence), avoid statements, facts, opinions or insights or simply adding "i think" and low player skill disclaimer helps also. 

nevertheless im completely fine with it.

 

By that logic only a football commentator who'd won the ballon d'or as a player themselves should have the right to commentate on football! Who you trying to kid, dude :) It's a game, it's about entertaining and enhancing the viewing spectacle for spectators, calling the action as it happens, adding a little extra dimension to it. For me, it's never been about teaching people to emulate what they're watching - its about watching a game for the enjoyment of watching the game and giving a human presence and voice to the action. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mysticjim said:

By that logic only a football commentator who'd won the ballon d'or as a player themselves should have the right to commentate on football! Who you trying to kid, dude :) It's a game, it's about entertaining and enhancing the viewing spectacle for spectators, calling the action as it happens, adding a little extra dimension to it. For me, it's never been about teaching people to emulate what they're watching - its about watching a game for the enjoyment of watching the game and giving a human presence and voice to the action. 

ballon d'? ill assume you mean to twist my point into "only someone personally accomplished and at the top of their field should have the right to commentate on others performance".

First of all that example doesnt work, someone can far more likely and easily have a great understanding of football with lack of physical capacity to play at the top level than have a great understanding of 0ad but not be able to play it at a level of 1600.

This can be transferred over to 0ad insofar as mental capacity and strategic or informational understanding are 2 different things, 90-95% of the game is micro/macro/stamina.

Nevertheless vast majority of people who played long enough, to have an absolutely basic conceptual understanding of the game, will have developed enough capacity to utilize this understanding and in a combined effect of these 2 things they most likely surpass 1300-1500 in skill, yes exceptions exist but we cant embed our thinking in exceptions obviously.

i did say i dont see a point of a -1600 commentating on a game for others to learn from it, i will add to that that anyone below 1300 would most definitely be totally unable to commentate in an entertaining, productive or informative manner for the enjoyment of anyone who actually plays the game.

to use the sports example not to extend the explanation further, imagine you are watching football, and the commentator is yelling @#$% like "why didnt he grab the basketball! he coulve thrown it into the net more easily that way!" "why are these idiots sitting outside the field? if they helped out then their team would win much more easily!" etc. theres a limit and its completely reasonable to say someone who doesnt understand some level of basics can not competently commentate.

can this be entertaining for some people who have 0 understanding of the game? sure, i suppose but you cant fault me for saying this is ridiculous.

So dont misunderstand my intent as "if people dont have a PERFECT understanding they shouldnt commentate".

Cant recall how many times ive watched commentary and the commentator is passionately complaining and criticizing a play that was completely correct, or blaming the outcome on some completely unrelated and insiginificant factors, etc. or even spectators that dont know what they are talking about informing others of their so believed genial observations.

My concern really isnt someone who is 1200 or 900 commentating, its the annoying delusion in terms of how much they think they understand, speaking with full confidence and arrogance, getting into details, or complete fantasy of their own making stating blatantly ridiculous things with full authority over and over again for 90% of the commentary that i feel is pointless.

if the player understands where they stand and comprehends their margin of understanding even watching a 900 can be enjoyable, they could be lets say amazed at some feats they couldnt perform, or confused about some things, trying to understand whatever, even if incorrectly as long as the perception isnt that they know for a fact what is happening. as long as they dont explain in depth 20 step theories left and right that detach from reality from step 1 and go into absurd nonsense afterwards.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vinme said:

Cant recall how many times ive watched commentary and the commentator is passionately complaining and criticizing a play that was completely correct, or blaming the outcome on some completely unrelated and insiginificant factors, etc. or even spectators that dont know what they are talking about informing others of their so believed genial observations.

My concern really isnt someone who is 1200 or 900 commentating, its the annoying delusion in terms of how much they think they understand, speaking with full confidence and arrogance, getting into details, or complete fantasy of their own making stating blatantly ridiculous things with full authority over and over again for 90% of the commentary that i feel is pointless.

I think the solution to this issue is to write your thought process and explanation of what happened in each game under your file, so that anyone else (doesn't matter their rating) can understand what is going on and why you made those choices. This will prevent wrong commentaries and the commentator will always be saying exactly what you wanted them to say. 

I have been sent many replays by different players and sometimes all of them are doing things that are seemingly illogical from an overlord's point of view, but after talking to the players and knowing what they saw, what they knew and what they were planning, everything turned out to be logical. So a brief explanation from your persoective will be very helpful to anyone covering your games. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...