Who watches the replays from the replay thread?

[cole]

To be honest im curious as hell, lol. Who views whose replays? :O. Some reps have alot of views, some hardly any, and so forth. man my head hurts.

[B.A.Baracus]

I do, there are some interesting replays there.

[Yoda]

To be honest im curious as hell, lol. Who views whose replays? :O. Some reps have alot of views, some hardly any, and so forth. man my head hurts.

I watch replays if they have an interesting description attached, basically. I do watch about 1/2 of them, maybe. If someone just says "Here's an interesting match in Orc mirror", then I wouldn't bother.

[Nedech]

I watch and usually quote them but no one seems to watch my reps

[Yoda]

I watch and usually quote them but no one seems to watch my reps

You need to provide a description to them which makes them look interesting, in my opinion :) . But on that note, mine barely get watched, although I don't post them often.

[Nedech]

Yeah i guess i need a better decription, i usually just write "Orc vs Ne, Farseer/grunts/raiders/walkers etc etc":P

[Basan]

It's all about the presentation... basically, your marketing selling gimmick. ;) And I do recall to have dl'ed some of'em but haven't checked much of them anyway. :( *Starts looking over the dl' folder*

[GroG]

i've watched them all

[EvilEggCracker]

Bah, I hardly ever watch 'em. Then again, I hardly ever go near Warcraft III anymore...

[Prozerran]

The question is, does anyone post there anymore? Sure, we'll get one or two replays every 2 weeks, but then it just sits there with no one using it. If you're going to complain about people not posting them, it should be addressed that people really aren't posting that many (myself included).

[cole]

The question is, does anyone post there anymore? Sure, we'll get one or two replays every 2 weeks, but then it just sits there with no one using it. If you're going to complain about people not posting them, it should be addressed that people really aren't posting that many (myself included).

Uh i could post alot more cause i play alot of level 28+ players but i dunno if people really care or what? Do people like watching high level cookie cutters lose or like originality? And whose complaining? O.o

[Yoda]

I promise to post the next (interesting) game I play, then. As long as I don't make any embarassing, stupid mistakes.

[cole]

I promise to post the next (interesting) game I play, then. As long as I don't make any embarassing, stupid mistakes.

Everyone makes a stupid mistake every game. There are very few games played flawlessly, and those few games are played by the pros.

[thefazant]

i normally watch them, but i havent watched reps/played 1v1 in the last few weeks

[GenocideAlive]

I watch replays that meet three criteria:

1. Solo games vs. decent players (30+).
2. Descriptions provided. (NOT "check this out I won").
3. Interesting / novel / good application of tactic / strategy.

I like to see people do something novel with good opponents or discuss strategies for specifically difficult M/Us (Orc v. UD, UD v. HU, NE v. Everybody, etc.). I'm not particularly interested in seeing someone just win a game. I win games all the time, that doesn't mean it's worth seeing twice.

[wa123]

I usaually watch those replay, it doesn't matter is bad, or good,
a game with computer, pro or noob, as long as there are description, I will respect the person who spend the time to post that out, and I normally watch them.

I suggest you guy not be too mind about the mistake you done in the game, is no way you can play a game perfectly, just post your game out and share the fun.

[cole]

I watch replays that meet three criteria:

1. Solo games vs. decent players (30+).
2. Descriptions provided. (NOT "check this out I won").
3. Interesting / novel / good application of tactic / strategy.

I like to see people do something novel with good opponents or discuss strategies for specifically difficult M/Us (Orc v. UD, UD v. HU, NE v. Everybody, etc.). I'm not particularly interested in seeing someone just win a game. I win games all the time, that doesn't mean it's worth seeing twice.

not many people post games of level 30+ people :o

[Yoda]

I watch replays that meet three criteria:

1. Solo games vs. decent players (30+).
2. Descriptions provided. (NOT "check this out I won").
3. Interesting / novel / good application of tactic / strategy.

I like to see people do something novel with good opponents or discuss strategies for specifically difficult M/Us (Orc v. UD, UD v. HU, NE v. Everybody, etc.). I'm not particularly interested in seeing someone just win a game. I win games all the time, that doesn't mean it's worth seeing twice.

I've versed people who were less than level 10 but were smurfs. They would probably be level 30+. However its been a long time since I've versed someone above level 30. Would you even bother checking levels?

[Prozerran]

I usaually watch those replay, it doesn't matter is bad, or good,
a game with computer, pro or noob, as long as there are description, I will respect the person who spend the time to post that out, and I normally watch them.

I suggest you guy not be too mind about the mistake you done in the game, is no way you can play a game perfectly, just post your game out and share the fun.Not trying to be a dick, but for your benefit, I'm going to attempt (and I do mean attempt) to retype your post so you can understand your mistakes with English and improve your posts. Your post should read:

I usually watch those replays, it doesn't matter if they are bad or good,
a game with a computer,pro, or noob, as long as there are descriptions, I will respect the person who spends the time to post that out, and I normally watch them.

I suggest that you guys not be too judgmental/critical about the mistakes you make in the game, since there is no way you can play a game perfectly, just post your game out and share the fun.So, again, not trying to be a dick, just hoping you're learning the language better with this kind of help.

And for the rest of you, NO! I have absolutely NOTHING BETTER to do with my time right now. That's right, I'm that bored.

[wa123]

Not trying to be a dick, but for your benefit, I'm going to attempt (and I do mean attempt) to retype your post so you can understand your mistakes with English and improve your posts. Your post should read:

So, again, not trying to be a dick, just hoping you're learning the language better with this kind of help.

And for the rest of you, NO! I have absolutely NOTHING BETTER to do with my time right now. That's right, I'm that bored.

Thanks, Im always willing to learn, feel free to correct my mistake.

[Demon_Child]

I watch replays that meet three criteria:

1. Solo games vs. decent players (30+).
2. Descriptions provided. (NOT "check this out I won").
3. Interesting / novel / good application of tactic / strategy.

I like to see people do something novel with good opponents or discuss strategies for specifically difficult M/Us (Orc v. UD, UD v. HU, NE v. Everybody, etc.). I'm not particularly interested in seeing someone just win a game. I win games all the time, that doesn't mean it's worth seeing twice.

I dunno, I have seen some people who are lvl 30+ that seem rather n00bish. Perhaps you may have to be a little bit more specific about that unless maybe if you were wanting to throw in a win win % of like 60 (or another percentage of your choosing) would be a start but that is my :2cents: take it for what it is worth.

[Nedech]

I've posted some replays with a good presentation in my opinion but no ones watched them >_>

[GenocideAlive]

OK, I'm going to kick someone in the nuts (or ovaries, as may apply). The point of me posting L30+ was not so you could turn this into a contest of literalism, but rather so that you could observe something that's rather important--I don't like watching scrub games. Games in which I can sit there and watch their opponent mass necromancers while they, oblivious, mass a bunch of footmen piss me off. Or when they run around with a BM while their opponent runs his hero into creeps, fails to TP for the Nth time, or just lets the BM steal creepkills and subsequent items.

L30 is a good indicator of someone that can play--I'm sure someone has seen a noob L30, I don't really give a shit. I've seen a Dodge Neon beat a Dodge Viper in a drag race before, but I'm fairly certain that even armed with this experience I'm not going to bet on any Neons over Vipers any time soon.

Deficiencies in one category can be buffeted with surplus in other categories. If it's very interesting and new, I don't particularly care if it's gosu. But if it's cookie cutter bullshit, you'd better not be forgetting to put pots on your DH or failing to staff out heroes.

Is that sufficient explanation, kids?

[Nedech]

That's ignorant ;\

[cole]

Percent is not a indicator of skill dc :/. Its ridiculously easy to get a high %. Playing level 30+ is actually kinda common for me, some are good some are bad. Just depends on who you get matched vs.

[Nedech]

True, i had 69% winning rate with NE and im not very skilled lol

[Yoda]

OK, I'm going to kick someone in the nuts (or ovaries, as may apply). The point of me posting L30+ was not so you could turn this into a contest of literalism, but rather so that you could observe something that's rather important--I don't like watching scrub games. Games in which I can sit there and watch their opponent mass necromancers while they, oblivious, mass a bunch of footmen piss me off. Or when they run around with a BM while their opponent runs his hero into creeps, fails to TP for the Nth time, or just lets the BM steal creepkills and subsequent items.

L30 is a good indicator of someone that can play--I'm sure someone has seen a noob L30, I don't really give a shit. I've seen a Dodge Neon beat a Dodge Viper in a drag race before, but I'm fairly certain that even armed with this experience I'm not going to bet on any Neons over Vipers any time soon.

Deficiencies in one category can be buffeted with surplus in other categories. If it's very interesting and new, I don't particularly care if it's gosu. But if it's cookie cutter bullshit, you'd better not be forgetting to put pots on your DH or failing to staff out heroes.

Is that sufficient explanation, kids?

TRANSLATION: You only want to watch games where both players are at a certain skill level. Right?

[Demon_Child]

Percent is not a indicator of skill dc :/. Its ridiculously easy to get a high %. Playing level 30+ is actually kinda common for me, some are good some are bad. Just depends on who you get matched vs.

If you don't think that percentage means anything, then I would love to see you beat this guy (http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&PlayerName=Qazzi.the.King). Otherwise, percentage does actually mean something.

[Yoda]

If you don't think that percentage means anything, then I would love to see you beat this guy (http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&PlayerName=Qazzi.the.King). Otherwise, percentage does actually mean something.

Thats because its someone else's smurf account. :) High percentages are easy to get when you smurf.

[cole]

If you don't think that percentage means anything, then I would love to see you beat this guy (http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&PlayerName=Qazzi.the.King). Otherwise, percentage does actually mean something.

Quazi is a good player. But his percent doesnt show his skill the fact that hes beaten other good players shows his skill.

Oh and ive played quazi on his old aka rival-pooptime (something like that) before. I got beat bad but not as bad as i expected.

[Demon_Child]

Qazzi isn't going to let just anyone beat him, not unless they are able to out-play and out-strategize him. And for a smurf account getting ranked in the top 5 by playing only 150 ladder matches does mean that there is certainly some form of skill required and that not anyone can just make a smurf account, play 150 solo ladder matches and have a win percentage of 86%.

[GenocideAlive]

If you don't think that percentage means anything, then I would love to see you beat this guy (http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&PlayerName=Qazzi.the.King). Otherwise, percentage does actually mean something. Cross Reference: Logical Fallacies: False Choice, Fallacy of Lonely Fact.

First you state that if Cole can't beat Qazzi, then he must admit that percentages mean something; as though suddenly you're capable of dictating the terms of the debate. This is called a "False Choice", or a situation in which you attempt to force someone to pick one choice (usually an obviously very poor one) OR aquiesce another (what you believe and wish to "prove").

Such is not the case, because of the next fallacy--the Lonely Fact, or Fallacy of Distribution. You are taking someone that describes less than .000001% of Battle.net and attempting to make a generalization for ALL of Battle.net. This is obviously stupid, and I'm afraid that I'm going to have to call Shenanigans and ask that in the future you pick your arguments more carefully.

For purposes of ending this discussion, we will have to resort to non-absolutes (gasp!). For instance:

Percentages and levels by and large are no indicator of the certainty with which a player will win a game. However, higher levels and percentages increase the probability in which a given player will win games he or she plays.

Logic Police Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!