How closely do marine commanders watch their upgrades in progress in that situation? e.g. would a commander cancel an almost complete armour upgrade to reclaim the res needed for a beacon?
If they lost then they obviously messed up somewhere...
Oh wait.... ... something about something being "random"..... uh huh.
Arc stopped paying attention to where their team was at because they felt they were in control and even though they were in control they didn't save enough resources for a beacon.
Didn't say they didn't mess up. But losing the game for one mistake is still too harsh. Moreover, organising a base rush as aliens is very easy and, happening at a time of desperation, has no risks (i.e. map control lost due to a failed base rush doesn't matter). A no-skill, no-risk all-in out of desperation move wins a game - why is that entertaining? Of course it can be countered, but no team should be forced to play without making any mistakes, and no single engagement should decide the game as a whole (especially at that point in the game).
I can't speak for Jaivol or the rest of Godar and I might be completely off base in this assumption, but from my standpoint as a spectator that baserush looked as though it was carefully planned and had been planned for some time. It seemed as though they had been preparing for it ever since the fades when down in crossroads, based off of how they managed their lifeforms. They obviously couldn't have known that Arc was only at 1 tres when they rushed but they did know that there were no marines near PGs. I thought it was very well positioned and perfectly executed.
But you guys are the best in the world and I'm just a fan/spectator, so I might be totally wrong.
Actually, for me it wasn't the base rush that made it entertaining to watch. Just like it wasn't the baserush at the invitational finals that made round 1 the best from my perspective. It was that these rounds were VERY close for good portions of the game, with swings either way during the process. Yes, Arc built up an advantage in each round (it was a strong opening 5 minutes from nexzil, but arc recovered very effectively during the invitationals). To lose the game to a rush after that hard work must be quite hollow at the time when you're involved, but as I said, the interesting thing for me was how close the game was at various points in those rounds.
From a spectator's perspective, it was great to see Godar really pushing Arc at times (and the recovery from the diabolical start on round 3 to last 20 minutes was pretty remarkable in itself). It surely must be good to play in games against clans who you don't necessarily think 'it's okay lads, we've got this'.
Both teams are great to watch, Arc for the clinical efficiency, Godar because they're both mad and brilliant at the same time.
I guess it wasn't streamed, since it didn't count for the tie breaker, but I personally thought the fourth round was the best. Solid marine execution leading to an Archaea win after lots of tense back and forth play.
Honestly I thought Godar had won earlier.. they could've focus biled the arms lab much sooner through several times that the ventilation flank was open and then wiped all the marines with 0/0 against fades. (part of why I feel late game marines with extra Tres should have a second arms lab at the other base against a large fade mass)
But instead suicided into crossroads with no flank attack straight into shotguns and sentries.
It wasn't as much luck as it was positioning imo. Killing RC and Crevice was great but it left the ventilation lane horribly exposed, and they went in because of that. With all due respect Fana, you guys lost fair and square that round. 1 man watching that flank (he was shooting crags in pipe when the gorges slipped by) would've turned "luck" into "failed base rush". (if my memory serves me correctly that is where the base rush came from)
You lost due to a series of mistakes caused by variables that were completely within your control (TRes count, positioning etc). It was not luck, nor randomness and to say otherwise is disparaging to the effort put up by godar. The game was full of mistakes on both sides, yours was just bad enough that it cost you the round.
You lost due to a series of mistakes caused by variables that were completely within your control (TRes count, positioning etc). It was not luck, nor randomness and to say otherwise is disparaging to the effort put up by godar. The game was full of mistakes on both sides, yours was just bad enough that it cost you the round.
Dont' forget the arbitrary placement of their observatory..... if it had been placed near the powernode (or the rt), they would have seen the 2 aliens sitting in the vent.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2013
A lot of people getting their panties in a bunch over the word "luck", yet not a single person seems to have understood a word of what was actually the point.
Dont' forget the arbitrary placement of their observatory..... if it had been placed near the powernode (or the rt), they would have seen the 2 aliens sitting in the vent.
That's an interesting observation regardless, something I didn't notice during the game. The obs could've been placed closer to the vent. I assume scrajm has a reason for not doing so, but I will ask him about it.
Some people mention luck because it is how you ended your paragraph about how the situation unfolded. I suspect when you said "Using that particular game as an example: For that baserush to succeed, several different variables all had to work out in their favor, none of which they had any control over, and most of which we had very little effective control over. " people disagreed which is why you are getting the responses you did, not because you said it was partially lucky.
Its really a moot point though. Games were entertaining to watch, hope yall get to do it again.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2013
It's possible I worded that too categorically, concealing the intended meaning.
Theoretically it makes sense to say that a team has control over every action they make in the game, and thus there is no random element, but it makes very little sense when put into practice. The variables are too many and the margins too minute for it to make any sense to say, in the practical sense of the meaning, that a team truly has control over their fate in such a situation. Yes, there are a number of things one can do to improve ones chances, but the element of chance is very prominent regardless of what you do.
I've played this game and its predecessor at the highest level for over ten years now. Throughout those years, I've been on both the receiving end and the transmitting end of baserush wins more times than I can count. What all that experience has taught me is that the likelyhood of succeeding with a baserush is usually very low, and that their success and failure are highly dependant on what is effectively random chance, coincidence, luck, or whichever terminology one prefers.
My original post actually had nothing to do with the legitimacy or "quality" of using baserushes to win game (it is perfectly legitimate, no less so than winning a game through any other means), which I thought I had made abundantly clear (apparently not, since people keep making silly comments like "to say otherwise is disparaging to the effort put up by godar"). My point was predicated on what I find interesting to watch when spectating games, which heavily tilts towards modes of play that minimize the random element. I personally don't understand why anyone would think that game was particularly interesting to watch, nor do I understand why anyone would think the first game of the Invitational final was particularly interesting, but it is possible I've simply just lost that interest through many years of experience with baserushes.
blindJoin Date: 2010-04-17Member: 71437Members, Squad Five Gold
Well, Fana, I completely understand your point of view since I also love to see the kind of matches where both teams fight so sharp and well planned/organized that only the slightest mistake slowly wins the game for one of the teams. The beauty of that can though not be seen by everyone and it is a very different taste on a different level what you are watching for. Hitting a perfectly timed window with perfect execution, exceptional decision making and a solid win by minimizing those random factors is what I love personally, but I also enjoy the entertainment of having a team winning a lost game by an - to some extend - lucky rush/move/whatever. It gives variation, the upset, the "WTFJUSTHAPPENED" feeling - all the kinds of stuff which is less enjoyable as a participating player but way more for a viewer who already saw one team win just to be proven wrong with his jaw falling down on the table. Let the people enjoy Godar's baserush win
Perhaps showing a little humility and being humble in defeat would be warranted rather than coming in with a higher than thou attitude declaring those games not exciting to watch. Throwing around terms like randomness and luck to explain away the defeat is absurd and unneeded. Let the match stand on its own merit and the viewers will decide for themselves what they enjoy.
And it was disparaging. And unsportsmanlike. I'll ride my comments off a damn cliff if I have to.
I do not know how many people share my opinion, but when the base rush happened, I took my headphones off and went to have a drink and let out a deep sigh. It was disappointing to see such an end to the round, and I really couldn't stand the enthusiasm and amazement the casters and the people in the twitch chat had and expressed through various "OMG THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER" -exclamations.
//Edit: what the hell is wrong with this posting tool?
I do not know how many people share my opinion, but
when the base rush happened, I took my headphones off and went to have a
drink and let out a deep sigh. It was disappointing to see such an end
to the round, and I really couldn't stand the enthusiasm and amazement
the casters and the people in the twitch chat had and expressed through
various "OMG THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER" -exclamations.
//Edit: what the hell is wrong with this posting tool?
I understand exactly what you mean. If it was a powernode related
victory with Hugh casting, I would of reacted the exact same way.
I think a large portion of it comes from what people find enjoyable in watching games. Personally I find the display of high individual skill exciting, or very good team coordination. Watching the first game I would say seeing the fades get killed so quickly in crossroads was one of the highlights. Others may enjoy a more cinematic experience, and those are the people I suspect find baserush kind of events more entertaining.
Personally I think the comparision between your game with Godar and the first round of the Invitational final are a little different, while nexzil was definately ahead in that game you guys had nearly 160 tres in the bank and an onos on the field, so I think the success of your baserush was a little more tatically valid, although not as exciting as if the round had played out I wouldnt discredit that win either.
Overall I agree with the point of baserush success being a mostly dumb 'luck' event, but the highlighting of such events really shows what many people find entertaining about the game, which IMO is unfortunate for a game like NS.
Personally I thought the base rush ending was a bit anti-climactic, but that comes down to taste I guess. I understand why people liked it, as it's generally exciting to see the unexpected happen. It was a complete turn around. But I was hoping for something else to clinch it, a big engagement, or some smart plays. Sure, a base rush is a valid strat like any other, but I don't find it that fulfilling (either as a player executing/defending it, or as a spectator watching).
Definitely an anti-climatic ending, but a really good game leading up to that point.
So a climatic ending would have been Arc slowly pushing until finally winning?
Is watching grass grow climatic to you?
lol.....
Not necessarily, but the current round-ending was more of a balloon popping; sudden, unexpected and unpleasant with no build-up or interesting execution.
Overall I agree with the point of baserush success being a mostly dumb 'luck' event, but the highlighting of such events really shows what many people find entertaining about the game, which IMO is unfortunate for a game like NS.
If you leave your base open or vulnerable, how is it a dumb luck event? You have to know when you can push in. Especially that far into the game. When you see 4 marines pushing (very far away from any PG locations) you have two options, either defend or counter-push, depending on your positioning, available lifeforms and marine upgrades. But then again I don't consider what we did to win a base rush, per se. It was just two gorges in base biling, Arms Lab went down, then the fades went in as we could engage 0/0 marines easily, jetpacks or not. It was not a desperation move.
fana, watching round 2 was good, godar had good early game, arc caught up, fade explosion smashed arc. arc got back in after destroying that all-in godar xroads push, and was in a solid position to win, godar on the back foot pulled off a good/fluke base rush which arc players were out of position and maybe a error from scrajm i dunno.
That makes a good match for the viewers because it's back and forth not textbook smashing of one team. Specially since i think godar and arc played a good half (something that you will probably attest to, given that you guys had a mixup of strats from what we normally see?)
As a player playing, I hate games that are back and forth. i like textbooks victories which is what your basing your decision off.
I Don't think anyone enjoyed your 5 min demolition egg lock of nexzil as a spectator, It's boring to watch. But full props to Arc there a great team for being able to put good teams in that position.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Seneca
In general, whenever you find yourself in at a disadvantage in a situation, you need to increase the variance. Playing safe when the situation is trending towards your defeat is mathematically bad, and vice versa - if the trend is to your advantage, it pays to dot all the i's and slash all the t's, so to speak.
So quickly realizing that "this ain't going to work out, it's time to start playing the high odds" is a smart strategy.
That it usually fails is why it's called taking a chance and not standard tactics.
And watching a loosing team gamble and win is for some strange reason enjoyable :-)
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Seneca
In general, whenever you find yourself in at a disadvantage in a situation, you need to increase the variance. Playing safe when the situation is trending towards your defeat is mathematically bad, and vice versa - if the trend is to your advantage, it pays to dot all the i's and slash all the t's, so to speak.
So quickly realizing that "this ain't going to work out, it's time to start playing the high odds" is a smart strategy.
That it usually fails is why it's called taking a chance and not standard tactics.
And watching a loosing team gamble and win is for some strange reason enjoyable :-)
This.
Everything involves luck to some degree but you can substantially increase the odds from vanishingly small to not very likely via preparation, organization, and good execution. I'll agree that marine baserush victories aren't particularly exciting, but comeback victories are. Unfortunately, pretty much the only type of comeback victories we see in NS2 are marine baserushes. So while it would have been more exciting to see Godar comeback in another way, it was still quite a thrill to see it happen via a baserush.
Quite simply, as a spectator its more exciting when the outcome of the game is uncertain. However, the nature of current NS2 gameplay doesn't lead to many such situations except in the cases of really closely skilled teams and baserushes (-/AUS/-'s shotgun rush victory against [] on Descent is another good example of a baserush victory that was still actually exciting).
Comments
Didn't say they didn't mess up. But losing the game for one mistake is still too harsh. Moreover, organising a base rush as aliens is very easy and, happening at a time of desperation, has no risks (i.e. map control lost due to a failed base rush doesn't matter). A no-skill, no-risk all-in out of desperation move wins a game - why is that entertaining? Of course it can be countered, but no team should be forced to play without making any mistakes, and no single engagement should decide the game as a whole (especially at that point in the game).
It was more than 1 mistake.
Edit: sigh this new forum is such a pain to use compared to the old one...
A lot of people getting their panties in a bunch over the word "luck", yet not a single person seems to have understood a word of what was actually the point.
That's an interesting observation regardless, something I didn't notice during the game. The obs could've been placed closer to the vent. I assume scrajm has a reason for not doing so, but I will ask him about it.
Theoretically it makes sense to say that a team has control over every action they make in the game, and thus there is no random element, but it makes very little sense when put into practice. The variables are too many and the margins too minute for it to make any sense to say, in the practical sense of the meaning, that a team truly has control over their fate in such a situation. Yes, there are a number of things one can do to improve ones chances, but the element of chance is very prominent regardless of what you do.
I've played this game and its predecessor at the highest level for over ten years now. Throughout those years, I've been on both the receiving end and the transmitting end of baserush wins more times than I can count. What all that experience has taught me is that the likelyhood of succeeding with a baserush is usually very low, and that their success and failure are highly dependant on what is effectively random chance, coincidence, luck, or whichever terminology one prefers.
My original post actually had nothing to do with the legitimacy or "quality" of using baserushes to win game (it is perfectly legitimate, no less so than winning a game through any other means), which I thought I had made abundantly clear (apparently not, since people keep making silly comments like "to say otherwise is disparaging to the effort put up by godar"). My point was predicated on what I find interesting to watch when spectating games, which heavily tilts towards modes of play that minimize the random element. I personally don't understand why anyone would think that game was particularly interesting to watch, nor do I understand why anyone would think the first game of the Invitational final was particularly interesting, but it is possible I've simply just lost that interest through many years of experience with baserushes.
And it was disparaging. And unsportsmanlike. I'll ride my comments off a damn cliff if I have to.
I do not know how many people share my opinion, but when the base rush happened, I took my headphones off and went to have a drink and let out a deep sigh. It was disappointing to see such an end to the round, and I really couldn't stand the enthusiasm and amazement the casters and the people in the twitch chat had and expressed through various "OMG THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER" -exclamations.
//Edit: what the hell is wrong with this posting tool?
I understand exactly what you mean. If it was a powernode related victory with Hugh casting, I would of reacted the exact same way.
I think a large portion of it comes from what people find enjoyable in watching games. Personally I find the display of high individual skill exciting, or very good team coordination. Watching the first game I would say seeing the fades get killed so quickly in crossroads was one of the highlights. Others may enjoy a more cinematic experience, and those are the people I suspect find baserush kind of events more entertaining.
Personally I think the comparision between your game with Godar and the first round of the Invitational final are a little different, while nexzil was definately ahead in that game you guys had nearly 160 tres in the bank and an onos on the field, so I think the success of your baserush was a little more tatically valid, although not as exciting as if the round had played out I wouldnt discredit that win either.
Overall I agree with the point of baserush success being a mostly dumb 'luck' event, but the highlighting of such events really shows what many people find entertaining about the game, which IMO is unfortunate for a game like NS.
Nevertheless, all great games throughout.
So a climatic ending would have been Arc slowly pushing until finally winning?
Is watching grass grow climatic to you?
lol.....
Not necessarily, but the current round-ending was more of a balloon popping; sudden, unexpected and unpleasant with no build-up or interesting execution.
In general, whenever you find yourself in at a disadvantage in a situation, you need to increase the variance. Playing safe when the situation is trending towards your defeat is mathematically bad, and vice versa - if the trend is to your advantage, it pays to dot all the i's and slash all the t's, so to speak.
So quickly realizing that "this ain't going to work out, it's time to start playing the high odds" is a smart strategy.
That it usually fails is why it's called taking a chance and not standard tactics.
And watching a loosing team gamble and win is for some strange reason enjoyable :-)