Feedback about my casting

[WickedCossack]

Not a fan of overdoing criticism in casts, it can add a lot of negativity and take away from the experience at least for me. I try to just flat not say anything critical, though I'm sure I probably have said something somewhere. (No doubt with Veni, I blame his corrupting influence! )

Though admittedly that is much easier to do at later rounds as GS somewhat alludes to.

[Snuden]

As I initially wrote, I am not able to point to specifics. It's more like a general feel.
One of the things that drives me crazy though is you (on a regular basis) getting player names, unit names, etc... wrong.

Another thing is that sometimes you seem to get so enthusiastic that you make little sense, almost bordering word salad.

Practice makes perfect, so keep at it and things will improve.

[Snuden]

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxWXw0ETcHA and pay attention to how the commentary flows.

[deleted_user0]

I personally don't enjoy it much. I prefer casting where more insight is brought by the caster, rather than the "hype" type casters. It's too bad there aren't as many high level players casting any more. That said, you have improved quite a lot, so that's something you should be proud of. The rest is just a matter of taste, and you will never be able to satisfy everyone, so don't bother.

[princeofkabul]

I find your casting not bad, but worse than average. This is not due to your English, but the combination of your casting style and your game knowledge. Your casting style is understandably very similar to that of Kaiserklein, critiquing the players a lot - but your knowledge is not enough for this a lot of times, and it gets annoying when you are wrong. Note that Kaiserklein himself receives quite a bit of critique for his casting style although his game knowledge exceeds that of all but a handful of viewers, because a lot of negativity is simply off-putting.

I suggest you focus more on curiosity and excitement. For example "Wow, he sent 700 food! Is he perhaps going for a 10 musk + 5 huss pop timing?" as opposed to "He sent 700 food. This is really bad I think. I don't like this."

With all this said, my own game knowledge is very limited so I might be wrong in that you are wrong a lot of times. However, I still stand by my suggestion because that is generally a preferrable style of casting, I think - even by someone as knowledgeable as Kaiserklein.

This is interesting, because funnily enough, queen herself told me a while ago that I'm too negative and blame the players too much. Quite ironical in this context.

But blaming players instead of saying "oh this is interesting!" is also part of being serious. Objectively, when you have a good knowledge + you see the whole map as a caster, you can be pretty sure about whatever you're saying. Doesn't mean you're better than the guy playing, just that given what you see and what you know, you can take way better decisions than any player can do in game (the UI is much better than a maphack, after all). So ofc then it's easy to say "this was bad" etc. And imo that's what a "serious cast" is; it's trying to correct the players as though they should play perfectly, because then you can show the viewers what one should theoretically be doing. Bringing some hype is ofc nice, and it's needed for a good cast, but it doesn't really bring as much insight as being critical.

And I remember doing a thread where I asked if I should keep being so serious or try to bring more hype (meaning I would most likely have to sacrifice some more "useful" information for the sake of hyping), where a large majority said they prefer it serious. Then there's ofc a balance to reach between hype and seriousness, but still, "blaming" a bit the players is still a good way to give a good insight imo, which seems to be what is most appreciated by the community.

Then it's probably true that queen's role, as a lower level caster, is bringing hype rather than blaming the players. But honestly I don't remember her blaming the players too much, idk.

Caster shouldn't never critize player for doing something ingame. Not only because they should be neutral about it, but because they have no clue what strategic thinking is happening in one's mind. Or see player's limited perspective what is happening at the game currently. It's easy to viewer to critize when they see everything but honestly they shouldn't.

[princeofkabul]

I find your casting not bad, but worse than average. This is not due to your English, but the combination of your casting style and your game knowledge. Your casting style is understandably very similar to that of Kaiserklein, critiquing the players a lot - but your knowledge is not enough for this a lot of times, and it gets annoying when you are wrong. Note that Kaiserklein himself receives quite a bit of critique for his casting style although his game knowledge exceeds that of all but a handful of viewers, because a lot of negativity is simply off-putting.

I suggest you focus more on curiosity and excitement. For example "Wow, he sent 700 food! Is he perhaps going for a 10 musk + 5 huss pop timing?" as opposed to "He sent 700 food. This is really bad I think. I don't like this."

Nothing is worse than fake hyping just for the sake of positivity imo. If a strat is shitty the casters should be able to say it.

This is not true, caster should be neutral always. Hyping in general is pain to me, but caster shouldn't give his opinion. Caster is a neutral role. Obviously they can give their thoughts of what might be happening because he did this and that. Caster has no access to player's mind, and what he think is the best way to play in certain situation.

[Kaiserklein]

There's a difference between what you think is the best and what actually is the best. The caster knows what the best would be, because he has all the intel he needs to give an almost perfect analysis. The player doesn't know everything, so he won't take perfect decisions most of the time.
So obviously, it's also the caster's job to say what was wrong. I don't see why you would be neutral. If I wanna be neutral then I might as well be pr 20 and just describe what I see. Giving some insight is never neutral, because the conclusion of your analysis will always be something like "this was a good/bad decision". Ofc then you can still explain why the player took a suboptimal decision, given that he doesn't have a UI + maphack like the caster. But it doesn't mean you can't highlight the mistakes, because after all you learn from your mistakes, so why not also from others' mistakes.

[deleted_user]

On the topic of critiquing players: I think it's fair to acknowledge mistakes and to really point out good decisions.

What I mean is when mistakes occur they should be mentioned but they shouldn't be overly sought out. Meanwhile good play should be sought out more so and given more energy. The caster's skill and game knowledge limits which mistakes he can acknowledge. For me I can't really say anything about card orders unless something is really out of whack, for instsince, but I can talk taking the wrong tp, misusing tc fire, etc.

It keeps the broadcast a little more upbeat for the viewers while still being educational.

As in anything a little self awareness and moderation are worth leaps and bounds.

[Jaeger]

What neutral casting should mean is that the caster should not be rooting for one player to win over the other.

If one player makes more/worse mistakes than the other, the caster should mention it; this is not being "unfair", this is being a good caster with a lot of game knowledge and something interesting to say

[sc]

More stream interaction. Perhaps have some Q&A time with chat. I'm just spit balling here.

E: Honestly not sure how you could implement this, prob won't work

[kami_ryu]

I believe that instead of focusing on how one player makes mistakes, one should focus on how the other person is exploiting said mistakes. It's more positive because it seems that the advantaged player is exploiting something and being smart, rather than one player messing up.

[Jaeger]

On the topic of critiquing players: I think it's fair to acknowledge mistakes and to really point out good decisions.

What I mean is when mistakes occur they should be mentioned but they shouldn't be overly sought out. Meanwhile good play should be sought out more so and given more energy. The caster's skill and game knowledge limits which mistakes he can acknowledge. For me I can't really say anything about card orders unless something is really out of whack, for instsince, but I can talk taking the wrong tp, misusing tc fire, etc.

It keeps the broadcast a little more upbeat for the viewers while still being educational.

As in anything a little self awareness and moderation are worth leaps and bounds.

I agree overall, but I'm not totally convinced with your quote:
"What I mean is when mistakes occur they should be mentioned but they shouldn't be overly sought out. Meanwhile good play should be sought out more so and given more energy.".

You may be right, but I think the decision of how critical to be should be left up to the caster, who should be allowed to have his own style. I think this is something that should be left to find a natural balance on its own.

[Papist]

If casting had ranks, you would probably be a Private.
I cant point to one specific thing though :/

Then why are you posting in a feedback thread?

[Papist]

There's a difference between what you think is the best and what actually is the best. The caster knows what the best would be, because he has all the intel he needs to give an almost perfect analysis. The player doesn't know everything, so he won't take perfect decisions most of the time.
So obviously, it's also the caster's job to say what was wrong. I don't see why you would be neutral. If I wanna be neutral then I might as well be pr 20 and just describe what I see. Giving some insight is never neutral, because the conclusion of your analysis will always be something like "this was a good/bad decision". Ofc then you can still explain why the player took a suboptimal decision, given that he doesn't have a UI + maphack like the caster. But it doesn't mean you can't highlight the mistakes, because after all you learn from your mistakes, so why not also from others' mistakes.

Saying "this build sucks" as soon as you see something different isn't really that insightful or useful. You have to assume that most of your viewers have at least a basic understanding of the meta, and don't need someone to tell them that a certain civ should send a certain card over another. You also have to remember that you have a critical advantage over the players - you can see the "big picture", whereas they have at best a limited idea of what their opponent is doing.

In my opinion, where a high-level shines is in the analysis. Rather than criticizing someone for a "suboptimal" shipment or build, explain how it puts them at a disadvantage and speculate why they might have made that decision.

[Kaiserklein]

Saying "this build sucks" as soon as you see something different isn't really that insightful or useful.

No one said that. I'm talking about objective mistakes here, not about doing a different build. Unless that build is ojectively bad, of course.

You have to assume that most of your viewers have at least a basic understanding of the meta, and don't need someone to tell them that a certain civ should send a certain card over another.

You have to assume that most of the viewers actually need to be told what card should be sent. The average level of viewers is at very best captain, and even that sounds really optimistic. And when you're captain, you actually don't always know exactly what cards to send. If you did, you would be pr 30 easily, regardless of mechanics.

You also have to remember that you have a critical advantage over the players - you can see the "big picture", whereas they have at best a limited idea of what their opponent is doing.

Yes, I already talked about that. It should be taken into account that the player doesn't have full knowledge of the context. But that doesn't mean I can't, as a caster, say what mistakes have been done. The point is not to flame the guy playing, just to show to the viewers what could have been done better, because that's how they will learn and improve.

In my opinion, where a high-level shines is in the analysis. Rather than criticizing someone for a "suboptimal" shipment or build, explain how it puts them at a disadvantage and speculate why they might have made that decision.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. When I understand what happened in the player's brain and led him to do a mistake, I usually explain it, and say why it seemed like a good idea from his point of view, but also why it's actually a mistake from the "real" (= objective) point of view. Btw when it's just bad luck, I also usually say it, I don't blame the player for it. And I think what I said applies also pretty much to queen's casting, except it's a bit harder for her because she doesn't have that much experience in sup.

[Snuden]

If casting had ranks, you would probably be a Private.
I cant point to one specific thing though :/

Then why are you posting in a feedback thread?

Because I can.

[aligator92]

There are two qualities about your casting that have not been mentioned before, probably because they have nothing to do with what you actually say, are your availability/willingness to cast and the fact that you have a properly set up mic. Simarly to Chrisie you are available and willing to cast and there is no static background noise or other annoying sounds that go along with you speaking. Both are qualities that should not be forgotten.
About the 'actual casting' I would say average and improving. Good energy, a little confused at times and obviously lacking some knowledge which is why you perform better with an experienced player as cocaster. Your english and unit name knowledge have vastly improved (remember you not knowing the name/pronounciation of shrines) so keep doing what you are doing and as others have said before try to be more neutral in describing what players do.

[tedere12]

its ok!

[Snuden]

its ok!

"ok" is the path to laziness and should not be used as an approval of anything!

[tedere12]

its ok!

"ok" is the path to laziness and should not be used as an approval of anything!

ok!

[dietschlander]

@aligator92 thats such a fantastic post!
@Snuden go manage your idle btc on polimex and vills and other stuff

[Snuden]

@aligator92 thats such a fantastic post!
@Snuden go manage your idle btc on polimex and vills and other stuff

I could also call you an idiot. I dont have idle btc

[edeholland]

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxWXw0ETcHA and pay attention to how the commentary flows.

Thanks for actually providing feedback now

But I think that clip isn't a good example, since it was commentary from a replay so he knew exactly what was gonna happen and what he wanted to say.

[Snuden]

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxWXw0ETcHA and pay attention to how the commentary flows.

Thanks for actually providing feedback now

But I think that clip isn't a good example, since it was commentary from a replay so he knew exactly what was gonna happen and what he wanted to say.

Fair enough. The concept still stands though. A commentary should be fluent and (as much as possible) without word salad.
Currently I think Queen uses to much time on correcting herself in order to actually get her point out.

[princeofkabul]

There's a difference between what you think is the best and what actually is the best. The caster knows what the best would be, because he has all the intel he needs to give an almost perfect analysis. The player doesn't know everything, so he won't take perfect decisions most of the time.
So obviously, it's also the caster's job to say what was wrong. I don't see why you would be neutral. If I wanna be neutral then I might as well be pr 20 and just describe what I see. Giving some insight is never neutral, because the conclusion of your analysis will always be something like "this was a good/bad decision". Ofc then you can still explain why the player took a suboptimal decision, given that he doesn't have a UI + maphack like the caster. But it doesn't mean you can't highlight the mistakes, because after all you learn from your mistakes, so why not also from others' mistakes.

Everything you said is the starter pack of an amateur caster following on amateur casting notches. You never see professional casters pointing out mistakes in sc2/aoe2. It's aoe 3 phenomena mostly, cause there are no real competive scene nor competive casting available. Criticizing player/ his plays is not part of caster's role. Like I said before, caster can give alternative options how he can play or insights what he is aiming for with such play he makes.

I'd say Wicked is actually most professionalist caster along with veni in aoe 3. Sorry kaiser but I find your castin style is amateurish ( not saying it's the worst tho!)