He gets a rapid fire. I get it off. It’s lucky. We get the fear. It’s a good fear. And we go for the mine blast.
At first glance, I’m wondering what this has to do with a postmortem. I don’t know it’s part of one or not.
I notice a lot of times that people who review their gameplay and mistakes do a kind of commentary about it. It sounds like a play by play of stuff that happens. There doesn’t seem to be anything too wrong going on in the quote.
I have some idea about each ability or attack or item being used. Like, sometimes I see an attack happen or a debuff is applied.
Saying it’s a “good fear” sounds like a good play or getting lucky with it.
Here’s the next part a few seconds later:
I go for the defensive penants here cuz I wasn’t topped and I was like, well, I just want to make sure I’m staying safe.
I looked online what a “penant” is and found that it’s actually penance. It’s an ability for the class/race I think Hydramist is playing.
I think he’s stating one of his goals in the quote. So if there’s a mistake that happens then it could be with one of the goals that were stated. He could be playing too safe or not safe enough and that’s something he could rewind and watch for.
I think he already mentioned his strategy and a goal. If there’s something wrong he can watch his replay and analyze if he could do better. He could see that maybe the mortar wouldn’t be enough to kill the cat or that he was going to compromise his safety if he did a certain action.
It’s kind of hard so far to see the postmortem in the video. I think I probably need to think about what you do in one and relate it to the video…Idk. I know you investigate an error in a postmortem. I think he does that some for the first duel. He investigates stuff.
He’s reviewing what happened to understand how the match went. That is part of a post mortem even though that part isn’t focused on mistakes. Understanding what happened in the match is a step towards finding mistakes.
Yeah him reviewing what happened is him going over the play by play of the duel…I think. Idk what reviewing means. What happened tho is the duel(s). They were using abilities/items/other things to fight. He’s reviewing that stuff.
Also, the duels already happened. They didn’t happen at the time he was watching the footage. The footage helps to see what happened. He can look at the footage to review what happened.
Here’s a merriam webster definition of review:
an act or process of carefully looking at or examining the quality, condition, etc., of something or someone
I can’t tell if Hydramist is examining stuff carefully. I think he’s carefully looking at what happened cuz he’s describing the details moment to moment. Like, he says that the enemy gets a rapid fire and he(Hydramist) gets it off . He also says that it’s lucky. That sounds to me like he’s being careful. Not too sure.
Reviewing just sounds like you’re looking at something again. Like, you talk about what happened. You’re not focused on playing so you have more attention describe what happened.
What does understanding how the match went means? Like, what was good and what was bad? Is he trying to understand what were the exact events? Or maybe have a good idea about what happened?
When people talk about how like how work went or an event, they’re asking sometimes if it was good or bad or boring or nothing good happened. If that’s related to Hydramist’s duels then I think it’s his good plays and his bad ones.
Another interpretation of the quote I have is that he’s literally looking over what happened to get an idea of what happened. If he understands how the match went then he could see what he did good or bad or if he made a mistake.
I think I understand this more than when I initially read it this morning. I think if you know the context or what happened then you could find an error. If you find an error then you could postmortem it. I think it helps too with knowing how the error happened.
When I’ve done postmortems on my own time it helped to provide the context. It’s hard to describe in words why but I think you can be more specific about an error.
Let’s say you work in a fast food restaurant and you have two orders, and both of them you made the wrong drink. If you find out one order had 4 combos in it and the other was just with some fries then wouldn’t that change things? On one of the orders it sounds like you probably dont know how to keep up with making many drinks. The other error sounds like you’re maybe inexperienced.
It’s not focused on mistakes. I think I remember something on one of postmortem articles about finding errors. Like, you may not even have an error to investigate yet but that doesn’t mean what you’re doing isn’t part of the postmortem. I dont remember exactly where
Why is it a step towards finding mistakes? Idk but it’s like it helps with finding mistakes. If you know what happened then you can find when you messed up. You can say what you did fine and where you messed up.
It’s hard to see how understanding is a step towards finding mistakes. Im thinking if you know what happened then stuff becomes more clear and you find what’s an error.
I think I see how this quote is part of a postmortem. Hydramist has been playing the game it seems for a bit and knows how stuff works. He knows when an ability or attack or item goes off and he knows who’s getting damaged and who won. He already knows some about the match cuz he’s played it, but if someone else with similar experience observed the gameplay, they can understand how the match went too.
Let’s say Hydramist is observing what happened but stuff is different. If Hydramist didn’t get the “rapid fire” off then you could find a mistake there. If it wasn’t based on luck then that could be a skill issue thing. Maybe it’s the thing that lead to his death in the duel. I’m assuming here rapid fire is like a debuff. I don’t know for sure what that is.
Another example of understanding what happened to find mistakes: Let’s say Hydramist gets the fear, but it wasn’t a good fear. Hydramist could understand that he got like a debuff going but it wasn’t good. That’s a problem. It could probably not be good cuz the timing was bad or that the target was too far away. I think you could find a mistake here. Again, I don’t know what makes a good fear.
A part of me is thinking that you could find mistakes in a bad way. Like, everything could seem like a mistake, and you’re not focusing on the right one. Idk how you find mistakes well. It sounds obvious to do in a way but also like you could overthink it.