Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zief
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 21:58:00 -
[1]
Lot of talk about bad commentary here. I'll admit it probably could have been better. But instead of the "rabblerabblerabblerabble!" why not try and define good commentary. I for one would like to hear more about specific ships strengths and weaknesses.
For Instance:
Shield tanking a hurricane makes it very fast and maximizes it's DPS output, but leaves almost no room for tackle mods. This exact scenario played out between Veni Vidi Vici and Honourable Templum in match three. HT's afterburner fit Tengu managed to kite a Hurricane and a Sleipnir for about five minutes at the end of the match because no one seemed to be able to put a decent web on him.
|
Zief
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 22:25:00 -
[2]
54 views in two minutes and NO feedback!? C'mon people, it's our sandbox too. Is it too much to believe we could compile list of things we DO want to listen to instead of just the stuff we don't want to listen to?
|
Rashino Zea
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 22:31:00 -
[3]
I think most people just want to listen to coherent, knowledgeable, interesting commentators. And while all of today may not have been perfect, the last round was certainly nothing to complain about. |
Harrigan VonStudly
Gallente Isk Relocation Services
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 22:44:00 -
[4]
Good commentary, be it on internet spaceships, sports of any kind like hockey, etc... would be a verbal masterpiece painting of the activity on the field by those who know the mechanics, rules and have a bit of sense as to tactics. They are learned and experienced in the "game" being played. Good commentary requires quick thinking and play by play action with lulls, or dead spots, to be filled with some kind of info. Ad libbing, if you like. This is where natural talent comes in. Be it comedy, wittiness, whatever... Stating the obvious and repeating others isn't even decent listening material. Let alone commentary. It's crap. Signature removed for inappropriate content. Zymurgist |
Asarus Atreyu
The Kairos Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 23:51:00 -
[5]
Anything Verone says?
|
Arathon Theimies
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 23:53:00 -
[6]
Kil2 makes good commentary
Truth and Honour, Larkonis Trassler for CSM!!! |
jona1
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 00:24:00 -
[7]
Hi zief you wont get a response now, that the coverage is over and all the little trolls are back under their rocks,login tommorrow for more of the same, for me all the Commentary did ok,when you think about it though I guess all of eve thought it was fine too(CCP do you have fgures of how many people tuned in>?) Just some nasty trolls tryin to rock the boat/have grieves with commenator ingame/etc
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz' aar K'in
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 00:30:00 -
[8]
Things that are *not* imemdiately visible make good commentary.
For instance, the Ivy League consistently seems to field pilot Dierdra Vaal in their teams. Some of you may have heard that name. Yeah right, that's the current Chairpilot of the CSM. Mention that, then, unless you have specific instructions not to mention individual pilot names.
More examples: Bomb openings. We all can see one team fields a lot of bombers. But what's their likely initial bomb target? Are their damage types matched? Will the Purifiers fire before the Hounds? Is the likely target in range or will they have to fly a few kms? Are they going to bomb those frigs, that can just motor out of bombing range? Wait can they? Are there any web bonused ships on the bomber team? Will the other team give them bait drones to bomb? Bombs are large, will the bombers get new ammo from a team mate? (Side remark: I totally loved how the two Proteuses motored through their own team's bombs getting stripped of shields regardless, top move!)
Cap estimates: A team of Minmatar and Caldari ships will likely not run out of cap any time soon, but how's those three Abaddons going to keep firing for more than 3 minutes? No Basilisk or Guardian for cap feeding? Will that limit their ability to move?
Erm.
Good night :)
|
Admiral Brutii
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 02:12:00 -
[9]
How about actually naming ships right. I think thats the best start.
Like when they called a Vindicator a Marauder and Kil2 had to correct it. Or when they were calling Absolutions damnations. Trying to figure out if they are 800mm Repeating Arties or 1400mmm howitzers, you know theres only a 17-24 second delay in firing not hard to see the difference.
I think an inprovement would be to just know the basics of ships and basic identification of them.
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 06:51:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 13/06/2010 06:56:31
Originally by: Harrigan VonStudly Good commentary, be it on internet spaceships, sports of any kind like hockey, etc... would be a verbal masterpiece painting of the activity on the field by those who know the mechanics, rules and have a bit of sense as to tactics. They are learned and experienced in the "game" being played. Good commentary requires quick thinking and play by play action with lulls, or dead spots, to be filled with some kind of info. Ad libbing, if you like. This is where natural talent comes in. Be it comedy, wittiness, whatever... Stating the obvious and repeating others isn't even decent listening material. Let alone commentary. It's crap.
This mostly.
Good commentary would entail that you report what is happening and describe it in a form that is (tactically) meaningful.
A few tips/points for the commentators:
- Be curious, ask yourself questions: don't think what to tell, think what questions to ask. That makes it much more interesting.
- Think beforehand what the (best) strategy would be, what kind of weaknesses teams have against each other. Try to anticipate.
- Keep an eye on all that happens, never miss crucial action by focussing on just one team or one ship. So try to "zoom out" with your mind regularly.
- Identify/describe ships correctly by its function (or lack thereof) within the team. Good pronounciation is a bonus, but does not describe it functionally.
- When the other commentator is talking, try to get more detailed information that is not easily visible for the viewers, so you can comment on it at a later stage.
I do think that commenting should be mainly telling what you see and making (some) sense of it. Starting a long discussion in the middle of the fight can make you (both) miss crucial moments in the fight. So keep discussions short. Also, being truly excited or disgusted (by a setup or tactic) helps make it more juicy.
Proper analysis on the other hand should/can only be done afterwards (or during lulls). In this regard I would love to see (during the final) analysis afterwards by using replays in the studio.
So things like: what exactly happened with those bombs? Lets see that again. Who moved which way in the begining of the fight? Were those ships really energy transferring? When did the logistic stop repping? Who tackled that ship? Etc.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
M.M.
|
|
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 06:53:00 -
[11]
Lots of stuttering and irrelevant comments are the key to great commentary...
|
Zief
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 08:07:00 -
[12]
What Moonwych said, hit the nail on the head I think.
|
Comboduck
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 08:11:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Zief What Moonwych said, hit the nail on the head I think.
This
|
Gnaarzuk
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 08:28:00 -
[14]
tactical overview is your friend
|
BFish
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 09:26:00 -
[15]
I don't pretend to know enough about Eve to comment, but I certainly wouldn't say:
"CCP said they will pay us more if we talk about fish so I'm going to talk about fish"
Seriously. I raged HARD at that point. It's like saying "I'm not here to provide good and useful commentary for you avid AT8 viewers, I'm just here for myself. I don't give a crap about you guys watching, I just want money."
|
Miss Moonwych
Formedian Shadows
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 13:55:00 -
[16]
Oh. And don't forget the lol factor (or here) ! Brilliant stuff.
Basicly where the commentators are no longer being bothered by "critiques" and are just having fun with their co-commentators...
|
Jonthar Ready
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 14:59:00 -
[17]
I would like a commentator/expert style commentary, where one focuses on what is happening and the other on why it is happening. Now they are trying to divide the comments based on team and that often results in them missing things. Also its not necessary for both of the commentators to get the same number of words per minute. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with the commentary so far.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |