| #1 Badme[151503] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| OMFG 1st!!!111one |
| #2 Badme[151504] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| I'm not sure how the lack of CSS or whatever will affect this report...it didn't view up quite as well in preview, but if it still looks bad I'll just externally link it. |
| #3 Desert Demon[151505] |
| user-0ce2k1v.cable.mindspring.com |
WEWETSTETST
First :) |
| #4 Desert Demon[151506] |
| user-0ce2k1v.cable.mindspring.com |
| At badmeh's insistance, "non-author" |
| #5 wakiki[151507] |
| cable-68-186-201-213.mtv.al.charter.com |
| 5th! <3 |
| #6 PeaceableGhost[151509] |
| adsl-68-249-8-13.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net |
| 6th? Like, where's the rating for it? |
| #7 zeon[151510] |
| 24.103.7.128 |
7th.
CSS doesn't work in the preview, JV disabled it, I think. |
| #8 wakiki[151511] |
| cable-68-186-201-213.mtv.al.charter.com |
By the way, there better be a "halp" in this one badme -.-
Hehe. |
| #9 Badme[151512] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
There's more than one this time, wakiki.
And thanks, Zeon. So it should work in the actual report, then? |
| #10 zeon[151513] |
| 24.103.7.128 |
| badme: only if you coded it right i suppose. o.o |
| #11 Badme[151514] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| Well I mean, it looks fine when I just copy-paste the link into my address bar, so... |
| #12 zeon[151515] |
| 24.103.7.128 |
| we shall see, badme, we shall see... just after one of the raters unlocks the report of course... |
| #13 zeon[151516] |
| 24.103.7.128 |
wow, 12 comments already...
er, 13... |
| #14 Shuriken[151517] |
| ool-182e1a3b.dyn.optonline.net |
| wanna c :) |
| #15 Badme[151519] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Wouldn't that be funny if no one rated until tommorrow?
Dream of Badme's Report Plez :D |
#16  [151520] |
| usrns152.dialup.hawaii.edu |
Hmmm, I use IE and have a 28.8... Just sitting around waiting for the pictures to load, might take awhile.
If you want the 3 gifs to run simultaneously and you have them right next to each other, why didn't you just bind them into 1 gif? Then they would be guaranteed to be synced with each other.
I can easily tell when a report uses CSS because it throws off the alignment of the br.com banner and menu.
Anyway, back to waiting. |
| #17 Badme[151521] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Well, I asked Zerg~Ling and EldritchEvil about syncing them, EE had no clue, and ZL said that it was impossible. So Thanks be to them.
So how would I go about doing what you suggest? I tried loading 'em into a collage in GIMP, it didn't work too well.
Oh, and thanks for waiting on a 28.8 for my report, man. The reprot really isn't that large, mega-byte wise. |
| #18 Badme[151522] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| *report |
| #19 Desert Demon[151523] |
| user-0ce2k1v.cable.mindspring.com |
Gogo "Get Cable For Who'sGotLag.IDO Fund"
Donate now! |
| #20 Desert Demon[151524] |
| user-0ce2k1v.cable.mindspring.com |
AFKlord: refresh comments ;D
badme: WHAT?!
badme: Oh Fluck you
AFKlord: ??
AFKlord: lol
badme: I thought he had replied
badme: GODDAMNIT
badme: GOT ME ALL EXCITED
AFKlord: lol
AFKlord: I do that...*purr*
badme: ...
badme: Shall I get the Mace?
AFKlord: ewwno
badme: And I'm not talking about the spray can
badme: I mean the Big Spikey Ball of Death.
AFKlord: o_O
* badme thwacks
I will stop spamming now ;o |
#21  [151525] |
| user-12l2ep3.cable.mindspring.com |
I implemented the "report approval" feature, so that any rater can quickly "approve for viewing" any report that is legit.
Sorry, I bet I programmed that feature in less time that it would take me to read and rate that. So why not create a value added feature for the site with that chunk of time.
;-)
I'll read it tommorrow at work! |
| #22 zeon[151526] |
| 24.103.7.128 |
| css does look fine... |
#23  [151528] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
I read part 1, and I liked it, but it's getting late.
Now that Johnny shows once again how leet he is, I don't feel so bad in waiting to rate it til tommorow.
Boxer makes me drool... |
| #24 [151529] |
| user-12l2ep3.cable.mindspring.com |
| Oh, your CSS broke because you have a CSS class for the "body" tag. Since I already have a body tag on the view report page, I believe your CSS is ignored. Change "body" to "td" and wrap your report in a table. |
| #25 Badme[151531] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| I'll try to reupload with that. Thanks! |
| #26 Badme[151532] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| Well, it's not perfect, but it looks better now. Thanks! |
#27  [151533] |
| CPE000ea6388836-CM00080d371c83.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
Well, nice report, probably your best SC-related one to date.
I thought the graphics were pretty bad though - many didn't show action and were largely useless. Also, some of the gifs were really not necessary - they took up alot of space and didn't show anything really good ( the first triplet of them comes to mind - ling.gif, marine.gif, etc. ).
The format wasn't the best either - didn't really see the CSS wizardry zeon comments on. Writing was decent, but lacking in humour and not that inspired - effort was tremendous, obviously, and the games were good enough.
8. |
| #28 [151534] |
| usrns67.dialup.hawaii.edu |
About the gifs, what I meant was you basically go back to the raw materials and recreate the gif with a series of collages. The easiest way to make it work you create a picture of defined size and basically place the 3 pictures into 3 corners for every frame of animation. That way they will always be lined up from one frame to another. Once you've finished with all the making all the new frames you make a brand new gif.
You don't really need to do that for this one as I will explain later. |
| #29 Decay[151535] |
| 66.44.173.38 |
| Pretty good, although because of your intro it was obvious that boxer would win both games. Also, since not everyone here has visited napoleic's site (probably), you should explain the power mass equation when you refer to it so often. Really nice job though. :O |
| #30 Shuriken[151536] |
| ool-182e1a3b.dyn.optonline.net |
looked pretty cool man. gj
|
| #31 [151537] |
| usrns81.dialup.hawaii.edu |
Well, Dag has already commented so I'll just follow.
As Dag said, the pictures were frequently bad looking. Those wide border single colored ones looked cheesy. The picture with the shadow border on the white background didn't look great in a black background table either.
Many of the pictures showed mainly blood puddles and/or arcalite explosions. If you're going to show Lurkers in dark pictures you might try selecting one with your cursor so we can see them better (well this might not be the problem). I also generally found your pictures to be slightly dark and hard to see detail. Increasing the gamma, contrast, or brightness (whichever the program you have uses and helps the most) might help bring it out.
For the trio of gifs in the first game I felt you could've done without the 2 gifs of the actual units. We don't really need to see the Marines firing and Zerglings running. The minimap gif gave enough info to let us know what effectively happened.
Also if you're going to use several pictures next to each other you should consider just merging them into one. This will avoid alignment and sync problems. This includes the mouseover pictures.
Btw. Allied Lurkers aren't the only way to do it. If you repeatedly press the stop button or hotkey, unit(s) won't fire and it does the same thing.
As a minor style comment I would separate Game 1 and 2 more definitively. Right now you use the same separation as between sections of a game and it would look better to me at least.
Besides the pictures, the writing and the games were pretty good. I did wonder why you used underscores to emphasize "yet _another_ front" but that's your style choice.
I'll also give this report an 8.
P.S. Its pretty obvious for pros but you should mention that the players selected their races so they knew what build orders to go with. I know the replays don't say one way or another but its usually selected so you could mention it. |
| #32 Sabotage[151540] |
| pool-68-161-122-116.ny325.east.verizon.net |
damn badme owning me? :]
nice badme excellent, |
| #33 badme[151549] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Ok, so, for pictures:
1. Nix the white background/drop shadow.
2. More narrow borders.
3. Less shots of the results of battles, more shots of in-battle stuff.
4. Merge individual pics together to help with the formatting.
Anything else, guys? Thanks for all the feedback :) |
| #34 goldrush945[151552] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
-> Btw. Allied Lurkers aren't the only way to do it. If you repeatedly press the stop button or hotkey, unit(s) won't fire and it does the same thing.
A far easier way is to select the lurkers with an overlord, then press hold. They won't attack. |
| #35 goldrush945[151553] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
Oh, and is Oov Iloveoov? Because Iloveoov is primarily a terran player, and is incidentally considered one of, if not the top player in the world.
Hold Lurkers is not banned from tourneys, but allied mines are. Which is hypocrisy, in my opinion. Bleh...
Anyhow, nice report for the two games. I agree with the rest; make the pictures nicer. :o |
| #36 badme[151554] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
The name of the rep is 'boxervsoovtvz', and the handle of the Zerg player is vo_O)V
That's him, right? |
| #37 goldrush945[151555] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
| okay, no, that isn't Iloveoov. It's a different player entirely. =/ |
| #38 PeaceableGhost[151556] |
| adsl-68-252-133-219.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net |
Yeah, I'll have to find my VODs of iloveoov vs Yellow...
Nice reports, btw. I guess I didn't pay attention to the intro - the second game at least I was a bit surprised Boxer won. vs. zerg though... |
#39  [151564] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
<i>Oh, and is Oov Iloveoov? Because Iloveoov is primarily a terran player, and is incidentally considered one of, if not the top player in the world.
Hold Lurkers is not banned from tourneys, but allied mines are. Which is hypocrisy, in my opinion. Bleh...</i>
you can hold lurkers by hitting stop over and over and over again. So using a different route will also work. Allied mines there is not a normal way to keep them from popping up therefore it's not legal.
not a bad report. Not better then the replay. Pictures are boring, text is boring. Again why am I reading this over just watching the replay?
if you do a game of pros you should make the report look more like one. While I applaud the use of a good game, you can do better.
6 |
| #40 [151568] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
"not a bad report. Not better then the replay. Pictures are boring, text is boring. Again why am I reading this over just watching the replay?"
Perhaps you would care to show us how it's done, oh God among Battlereporters? You show your face once in a blue moon, and when you do, you never have anything helpful to say. You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't bother to make it constructive or even worth reading.
"Not better then the replay" WTF does that mean? When does a battlereport EVER do a better job of covering the action than a replay? And if you are talking about aesthetics and interactive flash fluff, you're making a categorical mistake in equating two things that cant be compared!
It's critisism that you give out Fox, and not the good kind. It was boring, care to explain why, or how he could do a better job? No, you don't have time, but you do have time to slap on a six.
Way to foster the budding reporters we have around here. That's your job, whether you believe it or not. So please, explain why it was boring, and why you gave it a six. Badme's just too nice to say any of this. I would be LIVID about now. |
| #41 [151569] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
Okay, now to badme:
Once again, the pictures were mostly on target (except the small random dragoon exploding), but aesthetically equivalent to nails on the chalkboard. This stuff improves the more you work with those paint programs, unless you happen to be Dagomar.
The games were very, very cool. The thing I like best in a battlereport is when something happens that I just don't expect. I guess this happens a lot with Boxer. Getting your vultures killed to free up supply in your last br had the same effect. It just makes me kinda say to myself: "wow."
The writing was a tad boring in the beginning, describing what dragoons are doing and such. Thankfully this picked up after the first expansions were laid down, and in the words of CB: "when both sides switch their focus from head-to-head fighting to outmaneuvering." After that, you didn't need to make any stabs at humor or anything, the game spoke for itself. I liked the strategic analysis, it's something that can make you a unique reporter (Fox 3-4 years earlier).
Very good report, as a whole. Still not fencing though ;)
8 |
| #42 BlueRibbon[151571] |
| 65.167.44.106 |
Note to self: Don't make LN Angry
When I first saw "Both of these reports star Boxer" I put both hands over my butt, and prayed that neither were the game I am currently working towards battlereporting. However with both hands over my rectum I realized I couldn't check to see, so I held my breathe. Thankfully, neither we're :D. Unfortunetly, viewing this on my super oldschool 28.8 modem, I was hard pressed to view many of the pictures. So I can only rate the writing not the whole report.
The writing was worth a 7.5 in my opinion. Probably an 8 with the pictures. ;o |
| #43 Dampiere[151573] |
| port0648-adsl2.cwjamaica.com |
LuckyN00b... on behalf of the modest BADME... i thank you for standing up for a budding reporter.. Mann3r Rat3r :-D
as for BADME... well, i love boxer reps, really do and would like to see more.. downside of that is, in a Boxer rep, 9 times out of 10 i expect him to win. So, to add suspense to your report, choose players that the average Joe isnt going to see and go... "Yep, he's got 4 scvs, its all over for that other punk... " or mix the reps so Boxer wins one loses one. a reporter needs to write something that leaves you wanting to know or assuming you know and being surprised at the unexpected twist in the action. May i suggest Nada? he is Godly/Terran/ but by no means infallible and he has lots of games against talented and well known players.
Overall though, your writing is solid.. no comment on those gifs :> and you seem to be growing steadily. its a pleasure to see your stuff.
Oh, and thanks to everyone who finally explained why those fux0ring Lurkers dont attack when you move scouts over them... Argh...
May the Terrans Prosper
Dampiere |
| #44 badme[151575] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| Thanks everyone for the encouraging thoughts (excepting Fox), especially Newbie for sticking up for me. You, sir, gain my eternal <3. |
| #45 badme[151576] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| BTW, Ribbon, what game of Boxer's are you working on? I'm writing another as we speak, so... |
| #46 PeaceableGhost[151577] |
| adsl-68-252-133-219.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net |
| Note to self: No br-ing Boxer games. |
| #47 goldrush945[151578] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
| That's why you do random games from your replay folder that are >30 minutes long. :P |
| #48 maareek[151581] |
| mblt-ac027.gtcom.net |
| So, uh, I'll read it later. Looks good so far though. |
| #49 blitzkreig_[151582] |
| 102k-desktop1.apl.washington.edu |
| you spelled 'blitzkrieg' wrong. zoz |
#50  [151583] |
| nr11-216-196-208-89.fuse.net |
I was reading and said to myself, "Wait. Who the heck gave this a SIX?"
Then I saw Fox's comment. Luckynewbie already said everything I was going to. It's sad when an older reporter turns all bitter, like Drefsab did.
Anyway. The report.
The writing was unusually bland. It lacked the style and humor you've had in your previous reports, especially the fencing ones, in which you made even the simplest action engaging. In this report there was nothing like that. And I have no idea why! It just wasn't as fun to read.
The pictures were... Well, they weren't very good. As others have said, they were somewhat useless and ugly in ways. My biggest complaint are the GIFs and the mouseovers. They reminded me of the Lense Flare effect in photoshop -- bright, flashy, overdone and cheesy. It looked like you included them so you could say, "See? Look! Cool stuff!" which isn't the point of images at all -- they're there to provide a visual aid to the writing.
Of course, this is all opinions.
Next time I'd recommend you select your images more carefully, and have more clearly defined borders.
As for the layout/coding, I'd say that your text was too large and too spaced out. I didn't like reading it. The "feel" of the report, color-wise, wasn't good for some reason. I blame the images. It needed more contrast, I think.
The games, however, were fantastic (and terran won twice, hurray) and although your writing was somewhat bland, it described the action well.
So, I recognize the effort put into this report, but I also feel it needs to be redirected next time. Your next report, should you improve, will be friggin' awesome.
I give this a 7.5 |
| #51 Raider[151586] |
| pcp02066469pcs.11thav01.fl.comcast.net |
Overall, this report was a good read: the games were good and you explained the action well. At the same time, neither the pictures nor the text were anything special, so while it was good, it was not memorable.
7
And ignore Fox, he's just angry |
| #52 badme[151588] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Thanks guys!
EE, I was sort of going for the 'just the facts' approach, and I assume it's because I'm having trouble adapting my fencing text to Starcraft. I think the main reason why it's easier for me to get more interesting text out of something like fencing is because, well, It's all blow-by-blow. There's this constant stream-of-consciousness thing going on, people are adapting instantly, and every action is important. Whereas with Starcraft, there's usually a build up to a few important conflicts; it's not like there's constant action all the time. There's periods of down time, etc.
I don't know. I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying, and I'll work on it. |
| #53 badme[151589] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| And as for humor: In serious games like this, I thought it'd be best to shy away from it nearly completely. Agree/Disagree? |
| #54 maareek[151590] |
| mblt-ac027.gtcom.net |
| Personally, I think that as a reporter it's more important to do what you feel comfortable with. Just because the game is of a serious nature doesn't mean you don't need to add some humour in there. In short, make me laugh you bastard! :) <3 |
| #55 Desert Demon[151592] |
| user-0ce2kko.cable.mindspring.com |
| Humor is always good. "Serious game" only holds for those of us who take this game *too* seriously anyway. Have some fun with it. |
| #56 BlueRibbon[151593] |
| 65.167.44.106 |
| Currently I am working on a game between Boxer, and Didi8 on Legacy of Char badme. Even though thanks to .Praetor who has gotten me hooked on Civilization 3, its unlikely it will be done before the 20th or so. |
| #57 [151595] |
| wc01.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com |
| Yeah, I'd suggest having fun with your writing. Whenever I took a straight forward, purely serious approach in the past I got lower ratings than when I really, truly enjoyed the writing process. I can give you some examples if you like on AIM, and help you out if you need anything :] |
| #58 badme[151603] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Thanks Dag :)
BlueRibbon, we aren't working on the same game. Good. |
| #59 [151604] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
to luckynewbie.
if you could please comment on all the comments I've made on the past 100 reports. I'd appreciate it.
christ how is it not obvious when I say "not better then a replay" How are you a rater when you can't even get that? well I'll explain it to you and maybe in the future you can get it.
Battlereports are different now. Back in the day we didn't have replays, so the best way to report a game was to read a battlereport. Now that replays are out, you can't just do a standard battle report that includes strategy talk and build orders.
the reason is that I can get all that from the replay and more accurate then you could ever explain. If you want to make a good report you have to one make the game more exciting for me. Comedy, bigger pictures, backround, story, anything. You don't have to include all of these but include something.
Just don't watch a replay then explain the game to me. It's old it's been done, it's tiresome, the bar has been raised. This is not a gold report that's why it's a 6.
HOW CAN YOU GIVE THIS AN 8. I'm not trying to offend BadMe, he made a good effort and everyone will improve. But christ people dish out 8s to a report that are sub par. LIsten people 7 is the standard for a GOLD report. 10 is a perfect report. 9 is a near perfect report.
If this guy did a TMA report on 4 really gosu players and explained it really well and included something extra that replays don't have. That would be a 8-10. Not this.
He had no animated gifs. He explains situations about a picture above that I have to scroll back up to see. But other times he has the pictures at the bottom of the text. I see a picture and wonder if I missed something above or if I'm about to read what it's for. There are times when all I see is text on the screen. It's about as fun as a text report. Which currently shouldn't ever get a gold anymore.
to BadMe: You understand what it is to explain a report. You know what a good game is. NOW what you need to do is grow from that and give us good/veteran players a reason to read your report. Iv'e seen thousand of replays and played many games. I'm a good player and I want to find a reason to say "wow this was fun!" It just didn't do it for me. Maybe it was because I've seen the game a hundred times and you don't explain it well. Maybe your pictures was so drab and don't excite me. Either way it's not the end of the world you still have a gold report. So if I offended you I'm sorry.
Better now LuckyNewbie? |
| #60 Some_God[151608] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
| I agree with Fox... Ever since the new raters were hired it seems that all I seen around here was 8s and 9s (and ones in between). When I first started it wasn't so easy to get to those numbers. But oh well... yeah ... Fox is cool... can he be the father of my children? :| |
| #61 goldrush945[151609] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
There are different people. Therefore, there will be people with different opinions on what a good report should be. JV is a more lenient rater than Fox. But it doesn't mean that he's a worse/better rate than Fox. It just means that he saw more good things in the report than Fox did. =/
However, I have to disagree with Fox that a text-only can't get a gold anymore. I would say that a well written, properly explain text-only with good humor should get a gold. |
| #62 [151610] |
| wc01.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com |
I 100% disagree with you on a couple things Fox:
"Just don't watch a replay then explain the game to me. It's old it's been done, it's tiresome, the bar has been raised. This is not a gold report that's why it's a 6."
A report that's a pure explanation of the game and its strategies can still get gold, it doesn't automatically get rated silver, just because it's been done before. Hell, almost everything has been done before, does that mean that there should be no more golds?
Also, text onlies can definitely still get gold. Praetor's report was pretty close to a text only, and there's been a couple in the last month or so that've gotten good ratings. There is no substitute for good writing; as Mark4 said raters should rate based on their personal enjoyment of the report.
The notion that the standard has risen and such is not always fair. The standard can't continually increase or it will be impossible to get a good rating and the motivation for people to write will be gone. You've got reports coming out now that get 8's that a year or 2 ago would be 9's or 10's. I'm not sure how fair that is all the time: sure, the quality of images changes, but writing always remains the same. And if writing is the core of any report, the standards shouldn't skyrocket or anything.
So, in conclusion, I gave this report an 8 because Badme explained the games clearly to me, he put in a ton of effort, and displayed good writing. Frankly I expected it to be rated down - those images are obviously a killer. I must say I'm glad we're seeing some debate about ratings though ( I just wish it could be kept friendly ); the notion that ratings and raters are somehow inviolate is silly - a healthy discussion and explanation is always good.
Oh and SomeGod, there was a huge gold streak before the raters were "hired," and only after they arrived we started seeing silvers and stuff. Not to mention that reporters like Preator, Lucky, Mattz and I have recently released brs. As JV told me, we've never had ratings this good at the site, so keep it up guys.
|
| #63 Sabotage[151616] |
| pool-68-161-122-116.ny325.east.verizon.net |
| lol rater clash |
| #64 [151618] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
I have no problem with you giving it an 8 that's your business. I can rant on my opinion but that's why we have multiple raters. If everyone rated the same then we'd only need 1 rater. You make good points but I stand by what I say.
I think that a high % reports have always been rated poorly somewhat. Very few done correctly. I know for a fact when I first became a rater I'd give someone a 9 just because it looked like he spent 2 weeks on the font/border/etc. When in fact it probably should have gotten an 8.
the more I think about it the more I realize that it's good we have different raters. Some raters are not big time bw players who do not attempt to play it at a high level. I do/did/watever. So some things excite some people and some excite others. Everyone has different ideas of gosu.
I don't rate fan fictions cuz I hate them they are retarded and I'd rate them really bad. But I like games, I thought this game was really bland. Also the bar was increased after replays came out. It's not continuing to go up. But if you took this game and showed it before we had replays it would be gold for me. Probably 7-8. But it's not now.
I appreciate the good rebutle and I respect your opinion. But the only way this report would have been gold is if it was on anothe game that is never done. Like if it was desert command or something.
BW for me requires more. |
| #65 [151619] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
only way a text report could be a gold is if it had ridiculous amount of backstory and information. Basically a pros guide on how to play a matchup and written well with good games by a pro that were reported.
So if like rekrul reported a 7 game series with gundam and explained everything perfectly I'd probably give that a 7 or 8. Cuz that's something I'd want to read. But it would be hard to follow without pictures. |
| #66 [151620] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
oh and dag
A report that's a pure explanation of the game and its strategies can still get gold, it doesn't automatically get rated silver, just because it's been done before. Hell, almost everything has been done before, does that mean that there should be no more golds?
what I meant is that the 1on1 strategic bw game is so overdone it's just old now. I read through it going blah blah blah half the time. |
| #67 mattzarella[151621] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
Some_God -
PeaceableGhost - 3.0
maareek - 5.0
Sabotage - 5.2
FeroxTheUnclean - 5.5
now look at the rest of the reports, and tell me you don't think they deserve what rating they got. how about YOU suggest a way we rate the reports, hmm? let's just start giving out 7's to 9 quality reports.. I'm sure that'll make the site a much better place.
to everyone else -
some of CattleBruiser's early 10's would get 8's and 9's now. i think it's a good thing that the standard has risen a little, but i hope i hope they don't rise above what they are now - because it's near impossible to get a perfect 10, especially with the differing opinions we're seeing here.
if we continue to raise the bar from where it is now, the site will just be one big conglomeration of mediocre reports with mediocre ratings, because nobody will feel like reporting - they know no matter how much work they put into it, they'll always get an 8.
i think that br.com has found a really good place to stop with this whole standards thing. this is a time when text-onlies can still get a high 9 (though not a 10, which is good), and it's still a marvelous achievement to get a perfect 10 (something that hasn't been done in a long time).
adversely, if we all start rating like little sugarcoated girls we'll have a bunch of ass reports getting great ratings. and that would suck. keep it where it is =]
|
| #68 [151622] |
| wc01.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com |
Nice reply Fox, you raise alot of good points, though I too would have to stand by most of what I say. Personally I don't think the invention of the replay should raise the bar on reports - although I havent watched a great replay or played in WGC or gamei or whatever for a long while. In any case, for someone who hasn't seen the replay a straightforward description of the action can sometimes work, IMO.
I definitely agree with you that it's great we have lots of active raters now, there's a great deal of diversity from report to report and it's great that our raters are a diverse group now too. JV said the br was an artform now - not sure if that applies in every case, at least, but certainly there's an artistic quality to BRs and that means everyone will have differing opinions on it. After all, when van Gogh was alive many saw his works as the depraved scribblings of a madman, and now they sell for millions. Differing opinions have always been the hallmark of criticism, and they're usually a healthy thing.
I've said pretty much all I wanted/needed to say on this issue - after all, in the end, the report got a 7.6. I think that proves that the raters we have now all do a good job; it's probably pretty close to what the majority of readers thought the br deserved. |
| #69 [151623] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
I completely agree! i cannot disagree with the 7.6 it got. I gave it my 6 and in the end it's still a gold report.
Just like if I did some major comedic report some people might give it a low rating bceause it's not as serious as it should be.
Yeah cattlebruiers 1st report while good is nothing compared to what he releases now. But he still gets the same ratings lol.
To everyone there own opinion. |
#70  [151624] |
| hades.fgm.com |
Calm down.
Raters are trusted to rate according to their own opinions. No one has to like it.
There is no onus for raters to write a battle report about why they rated the way they did.
If anyone is still writing reports for a gold star and a pat on the head, they are wasting their time. You should be writing because you have something to say and your readers would enjoy reading it. |
| #71 Artius[151627] |
| 67.97.164.45 |
| Dagomar and Fox sound like they are married. |
| #72 [151628] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
Ratings are a interesting subject. We don't have any hard and fast rules for rating reports. I tend to rate reports based on a complex mixture of variables. But I don't think too hard about the formula, I just give a report what I feel it deserves, and I give bonus points for personal enjoyment.
I have found that I tend to rate higher "usually" than other reporters when people post unique reports, or from new types of games. Sometimes I get annoyed at reports that use excessive bandwidth, and I mark them down for that too.
If Mark4 came back from war, and posted a report on that, don't you think it'd get an automatic +2 pts from me? Hell yes, because I'd greatly enjoy reading that.
If someone reported on a new RTS or strategy game, it looked great, it had great writing, AND it taught you some basic strategy, then it'd have a chance for a 9 or 10 in my book.
You could still get a 9 or 10 for a TvZ starcraft report, but it would have to really blow me away, or be unique in some way. Maybe I'd give you a 9 if that type of "average game" report involved in an insane amount of effort and it was really well written.
|
| #73 [151634] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
I agree a new RTS or strategy game I LOVE THOSE.
when people were doing strifeshadow games I was so glued to the report.
|
| #74 Some_God[151635] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
Mattz, I'm not here to suggest how to rate reports... I'm here to write reports, post opinions on other reports, and respond to other site-goers. I was just saying that many of the recent reports were gold, which is odd.
Oh and since we are on the "you think you could do better" subject, I'm not here to do that... its not my job. Thats why we have raters for. So before you say that think a little before you say something...
Cheers,
~SG~ |
| #75 Decay[151638] |
| 66.44.173.24 |
Some_God, your post was obviously an ass kissing aimed at Fox. The second half of the comment was about him having your children, and the first part was you agreeing with him and extolling the fact that ratings were "not so easy to get" when you "first started". Not to put down your efforts, but your earliest reports all got sixes and sevens, and the reports getting sevens, eights, and nines now are obviously superior to them. There has been no change in how easy it is to achieve a rating, not since you've been here. Mattz drew the only possible conclusion that he could from your post - you were bashing the current raters ratings, which are completely fair.
"So before you say that think a little before you say something" - This isn't even correct grammar, but if it was, I would tell you to follow your own advice. |
| #76 mattzarella[151639] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say what decay is too nice to say
"When I first started it wasn't so easy to get to those numbers."
maybe that's because your reports SUCK TOTAL ASS |
| #77 Decay[151640] |
| 66.44.173.24 |
| Thanks matt. |
| #78 Some_God[151642] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
| Decay, I'm not kissing anyone's ass. I was just speaking my mind. It doesn't go against the rules of this website to state my opinion. So please dont accuse people. |
| #79 Decay[151643] |
| 66.44.173.24 |
"But oh well... yeah ... Fox is cool... can he be the father of my children? "
"I'm not kissing anyone's ass"
If you even respond to this, you risk further embarrassment and degradation of your already somewhat shady character, as the two contradicting quotes I have provided prove that you are, in fact, stupid. |
| #80 mattzarella[151644] |
| 162.7.33.65.cfl.rr.com |
| "Blow me!" is not an opinion, it's a request with the use of an exclamation mark |
| #81 badme[151645] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Let me preface this by stating that I find it, overall, rather futile to engage in a debate over something as subjective as a Battereport. However...
"christ how is it not obvious when I say "not better then a replay" How are you a rater when you can't even get that? well I'll explain it to you and maybe in the future you can get it.
Battlereports are different now. Back in the day we didn't have replays, so the best way to report a game was to read a battlereport. Now that replays are out, you can't just do a standard battle report that includes strategy talk and build orders."
This is a very dangerous proposition to advance. What's the point of reporting on Starcraft if every report must go above-and-beyond the replay? I'll answer for you: None. You cannot go above and beyond a perfect replaying of the events in written form. Full stop.
"the reason is that I can get all that from the replay and more accurate then you could ever explain. If you want to make a good report you have to one make the game more exciting for me. Comedy, bigger pictures, backround, story, anything. You don't have to include all of these but include something."
I've never, ever required any of these to make a report enjoyable, and I doubt many others have. A report is essentially commentary on a game. You could say exactly the same thing about professional sportscasters; everything important they say, you can get directly from watching the game. So why do we listen to them?
"Just don't watch a replay then explain the game to me. It's old it's been done, it's tiresome, the bar has been raised. This is not a gold report that's why it's a 6."
What about discussing the stategical decisions behind the actions? The thoughts of the players during the game, the steps they to make their conclusions? Can you instantly understand that through watching the replay?
"HOW CAN YOU GIVE THIS AN 8. I'm not trying to offend BadMe, he made a good effort and everyone will improve. But christ people dish out 8s to a report that are sub par. LIsten people 7 is the standard for a GOLD report. 10 is a perfect report. 9 is a near perfect report."
He went into great detail describing his reasons for it, Fox. Yours didn't, and as such I conclude that he was more justified than you were.
"If this guy did a TMA report on 4 really gosu players and explained it really well and included something extra that replays don't have. That would be a 8-10. Not this."
Why?
"He had no animated gifs. He explains situations about a picture above that I have to scroll back up to see. But other times he has the pictures at the bottom of the text. I see a picture and wonder if I missed something above or if I'm about to read what it's for. There are times when all I see is text on the screen. It's about as fun as a text report. Which currently shouldn't ever get a gold anymore."
Actually, I had three animated gifs, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe your browser screwed it up. Also, if you'd note, the only time where I put a picture in before describing it was when Nal_Ra expanded to 6, but all of this is really minor.
"to BadMe: You understand what it is to explain a report. You know what a good game is. NOW what you need to do is grow from that and give us good/veteran players a reason to read your report. Iv'e seen thousand of replays and played many games. I'm a good player and I want to find a reason to say "wow this was fun!" It just didn't do it for me. Maybe it was because I've seen the game a hundred times and you don't explain it well. Maybe your pictures was so drab and don't excite me. Either way it's not the end of the world you still have a gold report. So if I offended you I'm sorry."
The major problem was not with the rating, Fox. It was the near-casual way you threw aside something that I'd worked on for the better part of four days. It's the fact that you apparently didn't care enough to leave meaningful constructive criticism; compare how WhosGotLag and Lucky Newbie described in detail the strengths and failings of what I presented.
Let me leave you with this final thought: If every rater rated like you and critiqued like you, how many fresh faces would BR.com be seeing? |
| #82 goldrush945[151647] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
| Oh god... This comment section are turning into a flame-fest. =/ All I have to say is this: Is this what you guys want br.com to become? If so, expect a lot fewer visitors... |
| #83 badme[151648] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| I wasn't trying to flame, just state my views. |
| #84 Some_God[151649] |
| ool-18b8c5a0.dyn.optonline.net |
| I think he was refering to Decay and mattz... specifically mattz. |
| #85 Decay[151650] |
| 66.44.173.24 |
"Blow me!" - That can't be part of what they are talking about, no sir.
Badme - I agree with everything you said. :) |
| #86 reader[151652] |
| 167.127.163.203 |
| Great report, badme :) I enjoyed it. Your writing style is very intelligent and I think your analysis was spot on, with one exception: "Boxer will most likely assume that Nal_Ra is massing off of one base for a quick attack." I don't think it would've been too hard for Boxer to guess that his opponent might have been building elsewhere. Nevertheless, I think most of your analysis would be tough to challenge, and I definitely learned a few things. I also appreciate that you're not afraid to use a large vocabulary. What's more, I think the tension was there because I wanted Boxer to win, but couldn't figure out how he would do it. Keep up the good work! |
| #87 amoeba[151664] |
| 192-18-101-5.Sun.COM |
I thought it was a good report but maybe game choices could have been better. Perhaps focused on 1 longer game instead of 2 shorter ones.
The first game was especially short and the outcome was likely guessed by most readers as Oov is a terran user and was just messing with zerg to have fun in this game. In fact, if the initial harras of 1 base lurk does not work, the zerg is pretty much screwed. Still, knowledge of all pro players and their races should not be a prereq for reporting.
I like your writing style and you have a clear and concise way of explaining the reason behind each move. Perhaps explain that the pylon at the 12 min only by nal_ra was intended to catch any dropships leaving boxer's base.
It is a difficult job to report as it requires very in depth knowledge of the game as well as good writing skills to not make it dry or dumb it down too much.
Anyways, keep up the good work. If I was a rater I would give it an 8.
|
| #88 goldrush945[151670] |
| CPE0080ad8222be-CM000a735cb980.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com |
-> I think he was refering to Decay and mattz... specifically mattz.
Don't go putting words in my mouth. --;; |
| #89 [151673] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
Yes, very happy now.
I don't think that every rating you make necessitates a huge comment, but when you cast your vote in the complete opposite direction, some explanation is required. At least more than you gave at first.
I asked for your reasons, and you gave me them. Yes, I am happy.
And I still believe it's our first job as raters to encourage reporters to write. Why not say something that you like about it, about what made it deserve high silver?
And yeah, this report deserved about 7.6, so it's all good. |
| #90 Pretty_[151685] |
| someone.ctusa.net |
| Poor kids. <Smiles> |
| #91 .Praetor[151805] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
My goodness. I can't believe I missed a good rater working group. That's what this is after all, a rater brainstorm on guidelines and customs. And I'm going to add one here: I've always been one to add my opinion, because I'm egotistical that way. But there was a time when multiple raters would slap ratings on reports with nary a word. There's nothing wrong with that.
Now, I kind of see Fox''s side here because I was once a controversial rater. yes, I would give lower ratings to people who overused the unfortunate verb rape in their report. And I was an advocate of a more 'family-friendly' site. Well, this irked some reporters who had to pray to the bengalaas that I wasn't rating that day. Eventually, I good a good laugh when Mark4 authorized rater abuse by me on a ::nobody:: report. I gave him a 1, a 7, and a 10 - then my rating style conformed more to the norm. I credit Mark4 for this.
But anyway. I read Fox's comment, and I thought it was harsh. Certainly, I wouldn't have written that unless I also had pointers to give at the time. But I didn't think it was outrageous, as Lucky Newbie did.
Listen up now, THIS is the most important thing I have to say in this post: Lucky Newbie's forum attack on Fox may or may not have been justified. Debatable in my opinion. But that sort of thing, among raters, probably ought to be kept to e-mail, AIM, or some other form of private conversation. Now, I've never done that regarding a rating. And it's not policy. But I do think it is important to keep a respect and camraderie among raters. Laurels ARE worth something in my opinion. Fox was a key person keeping this site going during what was apparently a 'dark age'. Some respect may be due. People are happy I'm back, so they don't flame me for my ToF debacle. Keep it polite in public, please? |
| #92 .Praetor[151806] |
| c-67-172-163-127.client.comcast.net |
| And for the record, we are too nice in most of the ratings we give. Or maybe not, since I can't seem to change my habits :). |
| #93 [151819] |
| 68-232-133-105.chvlva.adelphia.net |
| Praetor's comment gets a 9.0. Text-only comments can no longer get 10s on this site. |
| #94 [151885] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
To Badme
Let me preface this by stating that I find it, overall, rather futile to engage in a debate over something as subjective as a
Battereport. However...
***you can post whatever you want. I understand it's your opinion and I will gladly welcome it. You are entitled to it and deserve it****
This is a very dangerous proposition to advance. What's the point of reporting on Starcraft if every report must go
above-and-beyond the replay? I'll answer for you: None. You cannot go above and beyond a perfect replaying of the events in
written form. Full stop.
***there is no point of reporting a 1on1 game if all you're going to do is recreate what a player like me could get from a replay. This is for myself not for newer players or ones who don't understand the game like I do.****
I've never, ever required any of these to make a report enjoyable, and I doubt many others have. A report is essentially
commentary on a game. You could say exactly the same thing about professional sportscasters; everything important they say,
you can get directly from watching the game. So why do we listen to them?
***again this is your opinion. I'm a rater, I don't rate on how you see fit I rate on how I see fit. It's my opinion, just because others would see different doesn't mean I do. I have no problem with people giving whatever rating they want. I can debate it but in the end it's there opinion and that's what matters. What I require for a battle report of a 1on1 starcraft game is what I had listed there. If you don't include those I don't find it exciting. That's just my opinion. About the sportscasters remark. They include stats, they include fun stories of the players, they include interviews on the side, reports of what's going on with the players. What's ahead for the team, what kind of things are going on now. I could never get that just watching the game. So if you see it like that it helps the point I"m trying to make.*****
continued... |
| #95 [151886] |
| inecce-pxy05.zcce.compaq.com |
What about discussing the stategical decisions behind the actions? The thoughts of the players during the game, the steps
they to make their conclusions? Can you instantly understand that through watching the replay?
****no no you can discuss strategical decisions that's fine. For a new player or a mid level one that's also fine. But for guys who know a lot about the game sometimes it's not what I care about. Yeah I can instantly understand that through watching the replay... I've played a lot, I'm a decent player, I know what's going. I'm not better or worse then yourself but I can figure it out. Again my point as a verteran player is that I look for different things in a report then others do"
He went into great detail describing his reasons for it, Fox. Yours didn't, and as such I conclude that he was more justified
than you were.
*****you can conclude whatever you like. We are both right considering it's based off of opinions*****
Why?
***** because TMA is a game I don't play much, and not many people do or they don't play it at a high level. So seeing a great game like that would be fun. UMS are always about fun and it would inclue comedy as well as strategy that people wouldn't have heard of before. But then again if I've never seen a 1on1 pro starcraft game and I don't the use of infantry or metal then I'd really like it and probably rate it a 8+*****
Actually, I had three animated gifs, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe your browser screwed it
up. Also, if you'd note, the only time where I put a picture in before describing it was when Nal_Ra expanded to 6, but all
of this is really minor.
*****if they were animated I didn't notice or like you said my browser screwed up. As for the text. I thought there was more then one instance, it doesn't matter if you don't do it then I apologize and glad to see you are consistent with presenting informtion.**********
The major problem was not with the rating, Fox. It was the near-casual way you threw aside something that I'd worked on for
the better part of four days. It's the fact that you apparently didn't care enough to leave meaningful constructive
criticism; compare how WhosGotLag and Lucky Newbie described in detail the strengths and failings of what I presented.
Let me leave you with this final thought: If every rater rated like you and critiqued like you, how many fresh faces would
BR.com be seeing?
*****We wouldn't see many fresh faces. You basically have refuted all my points in your text. So what things do you think YOU can improve on since apparently all my points were not valid. If you don't like my original rating then I apologize I can see this means a great deal to you and I'll make sure I explain in detail next time why I think your report is good or is trash******
To luckynewbie. excellent point. I will gladly in the future post about what I really like to encourage them. that's a great point. Thanks |
| #96 [152000] |
| 67.176.104.160 |
| We can get you 100 comments yet, badme. Fox, those last two posts were incredibly hard to follow. Kinda makes me wish HTML worked here<i>!</i> |
| #97 Decay[152013] |
| 66.44.173.16 |
I agree with Lucky, the big 100 is just one comment away...
Who will get it? Tune in next time when the little indicator after the report says 100 to find out! |
| #98 [152015] |
| wc01.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com |
| ROFL BADME IZ GHEI ROFL |
| #99 Decay[152022] |
| 66.44.173.24 |
| Well that was a bit disappointing. ;( |
| #100 [152041] |
| wc01.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com |
| that was me, btw ;) |
| #101 badme[152049] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
Thanks Dag ;(
And Thanks, Fox. I understand where you're coming from, even if I still disagree with you on certain points. I'll keep in mind what you've said for my next reports. |
| #102 Decay[152053] |
| 66.44.173.2 |
oh, hi dag.
Hey badme, lets shoot for 200 k? |
| #103 badme[152057] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
OMG SURE LOLZ
ONLY 95 MORE TO GO LOLOLOLOLOLOL |
| #104 OverTheUnder[152105] |
| 12-216-178-164.client.mchsi.com |
| you mean 94 n00000b:D |
| #105 badme[152109] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| Sabotage's still has 107. asdf. |
| #106 Decay[152115] |
| 66.44.173.12 |
| You just passed him. ;) |
| #107 badme[152150] |
| pcp05314423pcs.norstn01.pa.comcast.net |
| And gaining ;o |
| #108 maareek[152211] |
| mblt-ab053.gtcom.net |
I refuse to add comments to this in as much as I have never had even 50 comments on a report. And until I get at least 50 comments on a report I won't help you on your comment whoring.
Oh shit. |
| #109 maareek[152601] |
| mblt-ac056.gtcom.net |
*got 50 comments*
and am adding to your comment whoring accordingly. |
| #110 .Praetor[152611] |
| dhcp52.des.ucdavis.edu |
| Maar, your comment counting is really rather funny and entertaining. |
| #111 maareek[152648] |
| mblt-ac056.gtcom.net |
| Glad to hear it, .Prae. |
| #112 [158435] |
| 68.79.174.39 |
Hey I re-read this since I'm playing BW again. Very awesome reports. You deserved a 9 I think in retropsect.
Good job. |
| #113 [165452] |
| TOROON12-1178068393.sdsl.bell.ca |
| lol let's not open that can of worms again! |
| #114 mattzarella[166781] |
| 245.165.8.67.cfl.res.rr.com |
CAN OF WORMS IS OPEN
DISCUSS |
Home
Forum
Starcraft Tournaments
