|
Reddit thread for anyone interested since it seems most of the feedback has gone there.
The tl;dr
I do a show called Breaking Out that I put a lot of time into. I'm asking you to only watch the show until the moment you don't feel like it and then tell me the timestamp you got bored at so I can improve the show. If I can make the show interesting the whole way through, you get more quality Starcraft content to watch and I will get better viewership. We both win.
Who the hell am I?
Hello. My name is feardragon. I run a show called Breaking Out NA that highlights up & coming NA players in the Starcraft 2 scene. If you're not familiar with the show, I basically find eight players that have the potential talent/work ethic/etc. to become a big force in the NA scene. The objective of the show is to bring more attention to some of the lesser knowns of the NA scene while giving more NA semi-pros an extra incentive to get better and increase the overall skill level of North America.
I place a heavy emphasis now on editing the show to make it as time efficient and entertaining for viewers as possible. The show is broken up into relatively quick 5ish minute interview segments, followed by an actual game of sc2 by the player, followed by 2-5 minute analysis segment, rinse and repeat for all three matchups, and end the show with a bit of "wacky fun". Everything(except for the games themselves), is edited down to the point where I'm trying to remove "um's" and "er's" of the player in the interviews to make the show feel faster paced and not let it get too montonous.
Here is a recent episode of the show featuring an NA Protoss from Deadly Gaming named HuShang.
Oh god it's another why don't I have viewers QQ thread.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel absolutely no sense of entitlement to having viewers, getting donations, assistance from people, etc. I don't believe in the idea of "deserving more viewers" because a show or tournament will get the number of viewers it "deserves" in the long run. I'm not making anything close to a profit on this show in any way shape or form, nor do I intend to. My only financial hope is that I can one day make it financially self-sustaining so I'm not losing money on it, only time.
Yet, viewership for Breaking Out is fairly low. The live broadcast will ususally stabilize around 50-60ish viewers with the youtube videos ranging from 30 to 150 views. I spend a lot of time recording, editing, etc. each episode to try and create a "quality" product that people would want to watch, so for a long time I was under the impression that the low viewercount was justified by people just not knowing about the show. I continued to work on the show format, get better at editing, bring on guest casters like Rotterdam, ZombieGrub, etc. What I'm starting to realize now though is that there's actually a fairly large number of people who have heard of the show. The issue isn't awareness.
So that means either the show doesn't sound interesting enough for people to feel like checking out at all, or the show itself is not capitivating enough to retain viewers. To be honest, I'm not sure which is the problem and that's part of why I'm asking for your help on this.
So your show sucks?
I want to make a show people want to watch. Right now, I feel like Breaking Out mostly gets by on sympathy viewers who "like the idea" or "want to support it", and that's not where I want it to be.
So here is my request from you, potential viewer.
You want more high quality Starcraft 2 content? You want to hear about storylines in WCS that aren't the "foreigner vs korean" story that's been rehashed a bajillion times? Well you've got my time and a starting idea! Help me make it something YOU would actually like to see, and you'll benefit by having some more quality content.
So what do you want us to do?
Here's what I'm asking you to do:
1) That link I posted to a recent episode of Breaking Out? Click it and open up Part 1. Don't worry about the length since I'll talk about that in my next point.
2) Watch as much of it as you FEEL like watching. As soon as you get bored, note the timestamp and reason why you felt that part of the show wasn't interesting.
3) You can stop watching because I don't expect you to watch something that's boring.
4) Write a short post with the timestamp of where you stopped watching. If you're willing to, also list the reason you felt like it got boring. If that's too much trouble, I will be more than happy with just the timestamp you made it to.
Your time is valuable. I get that. I am not going to ask people to sit through a 2 hour episode of a show they were bored of 2 minutes in. So my humble request is to basically help me figure out what sucks about the show so I can make it better. Obviously if you're willing to provide feedback past the ponit where you get bored, I'd be incredibly grateful. I will be responding to every piece of criticism with an open mind and absolutely no ego so don't pull your blows. If there's any aspect of the show you dislike, I want to know.
Thank you for your time. I hope I can return the favor by making something you'll enjoy watching.
|
I'm always so conflicted about Breaking Out. I like the idea of it a lot more than I actually... like it.
I think you've got the correct formula with the small digestible interviews. The place that I lose interest every show is definitely during the games. As a viewer, I don't feel like there's a whole lot of tension during the games, and I'm not really sure what you can do to fix that, to be honest.
The goals of the show are to showcase these players, and that's good. The interview segments are good. There's always a few editing refinements here and there but above and beyond the interview segments have had substantial improvements and continue to improve. Those are a good way of showcasing players. You also definitely want to show the player's play, but you *need* to make it matter a bit more than it does. The way that you make a game interesting to watch is by either having a well-known favourite playing in it, or making it part of a series that matters.
If you wanted to radically change the format, you could pre-record the interviews and make it one big event where they actually play the invitiational and you have all the interviews filling time between games/downtime etc. I think that this would make for a really good show - we did something similar with SC2CTL and got *really* good feedback. Our interviews were nowhere near as good as your's so I think this would definitely be a very positive change. It would come at the expense of longevity and changing this from something you follow for a month to an (admittedly good) weekend event.
I think the other option that may or may not work is you set up a few feats of strength for the players who are breaking out. Since you want all race representation, you get three players, a T, a Z and a P and you have the Breaking Out player play those characters (preferably live) with a KOTH-type format where they win maybe $10 per win? I dunno, I'm just spitballing, but that gives the event more *tension*. The more household the names that the Breaking Out player is playing against, the better the event is from a viewer perspective as it adds name recognition to every win so they're easier to recall in the actual breakout invitational.
This next thought is only slightly related, but it's another problem I've noticed with the parts of Breaking Out games that I've watched: You're a bit disconnected in the framing of the story. Storytelling is the most effective method of communication between humans, that's why legends and myths persist for generations. So what story are you trying to tell during these casts? Are the Breaking Out players underdogs or are they unknowns who you are showcasing. That's a lot of the problem I have with the show, is the frame of the story keeps changing - the casts are mostly just telling the events happening onscreen but give no heed to implications of the events or add any cohesiveness to the events (this is another reason why live and sequential is a really good format IMHO). We need to know if these players are fighting above their skill level and are tooth and nail trying to claw their way from behind. Are these players hidden gems who crack under pressure and that's why the games we're seeing are fantastic but we've never heard of this player before?
Stuff like that. Give the show a reason, and let a narrative progress. Select replays that support that narrative - it honestly doesn't matter if the narrative is true or not, as long as there is one, I think the show will improve.
Personally, I think your casting is fine, so that's not the reason I dislike most of the games segment, though I'm sure you'll get that feedback somewhere along the lines.
|
hey man, ur editing is fantastic, you're a real good caster easy to listen to, lots of energy... the layout production is excellent, even the sound effects/music.
The thing to me that might make someone bored is it's a whole show about 1 player in NA that most people may not have heard of... to me I got in there unless I really care about finding out about HuShang (no offense to him), I got bored... and that was just part 1... there's 5 parts for this one guy.
Maybe, it's better you shrink it down, and do maybe do 3 different players from each race (or 4 if random)... this way 3 times the number of people might be interested (3 times the people the players retweet to, his existing fans, friends, etc).
You could even do local team profiles... multiple players from each.
So in this case I think less is more for each player. I found myself fast forwarding and not being interested in the rest that much. I can't see myself following up on each random NA player... AND what they like to do in a game... unless it's insanely innovative, it's really boring to me... and imagine if it's a race that someone doesn't even play... this is why shorter segments per player, more players would help a lot. 2 hour show is a long time too. To me you'd get more interest with 1 hour shows... with 3 times the players...
But that's just me. That's my honest opinion, and suggestion. Hope it helps coz I love what you are doing for the community.
|
I honestly think the part that lacks the most (and I'm really unsure of why you don't even do this in the first place since you're trying to showcase the player over everything) is that when you're casting their games to show how they play, it's only you. It would be 10000x times better if the player being showcased was also with you while you were casting the game so they could go through their thoughts during the game and explain whats going on in their mind as well.
The show should be 100% about the player and when you don't even have him there talking about the highlighted games it's like whats the point? I honestly feel it takes the focus away from the player a lot and instead just makes it feel like you're listening to a random cast.
Like the fact that you do the analysis as a completely separate part is so redundant. No one wants to watch a whole game solo casted, and then watch it AGAIN with the analysis after. (To be honest, I stopped watching when I realized you were just doing the cast solo without the player, then went back and realized the analysis is after. I didn't even know that was there) It's redundant, boring and makes people easily lose interest. Combine the 2 and it makes it much more interesting.
Also goes with what Freedom said above how it seems like everything is too long.
|
I apologize for not following the posting rules here, but I have tuned into your show a few times and I have some general feedback.
The way the show is framed/titled "Breaking Out" has always (to me) came off as if the players have already "arrived" and that comes off in your questioning. In other words, it feels like these players are being put on a pedestal before they do anything at all. To that effect I honestly think you are slightly too professional and seem to fumble around a bit in your conversations. This is to be expected and normal, I think the lack of viewers has to do with that fact that you are not a former pro, because you do the shows (at least what I have seen) completely solo. This leaves a lot of time for awkward moments in between segments, perhaps there isn't any chemistry between you and the host, etc. This is the moment when I usually leave the stream. My suggestion; create a proving ground (jokingly) for these NA players you bring on and have some fun with them. Test their game knowledge, make them resume a game from replay from a near impossible position, shock everyone by having a surprise guest show up for the ultimate test (like a well known NA pro), things like that. Again, just a thought.
I don't like telling people how to run their business/show so I apologize if the above comes off as rude. I'm currently looking to invest into the NA scene so I definitely pay attention to anything going on and i'm always looking for ways to get the scene going. I think you will find greater success with a more laid back approach and have more fun with it. We all know that NA is the butt of the SC2 joke, so why not have a bit more fun with it?
Feel free to pm me if you want to discuss other options/ideas. 
|
Canada13389 Posts
On March 24 2015 05:48 Gemini_19 wrote:
I honestly think the part that lacks the most (and I'm really unsure of why you don't even do this in the first place since you're trying to showcase the player over everything) is that when you're casting their games to show how they play, it's only you. It would be 10000x times better if the player being showcased was also with you while you were casting the game so they could go through their thoughts during the game and explain whats going on in their mind as well.
The show should be 100% about the player and when you don't even have him there talking about the highlighted games it's like whats the point? I honestly feel it takes the focus away from the player a lot and instead just makes it feel like you're listening to a random cast.
Like the fact that you do the analysis as a completely separate part is so redundant. No one wants to watch a whole game solo casted, and then watch it AGAIN with the analysis after. (To be honest, I stopped watching when I realized you were just doing the cast solo without the player, then went back and realized the analysis is after. I didn't even know that was there) It's redundant, boring and makes people easily lose interest. Combine the 2 and it makes it much more interesting.
Also goes with what Freedom said above how it seems like everything is too long.
Oh this would be great, you could look at for example the old Mr Bitter videos from when he would have a pro on to coach him, eventually iirc he did a series where the pro player would play their race and explain themselves as well.
|
0:12
fake enthusiasm
audio out of sync
NA
|
Feardragon, I'm the guy who always asks about your quarter-zip mock neck sweater on stream chat.
I love the concept of Breaking Out, and have watched a good chunk of it in past seasons. I mostly watched for SaroVati, rebOrn, and Believe/Naya who was on my team at the time.
Recently I haven't tuned in much, and I would break it down to a few reasons...
1. The Interview segments tend to be fairly bland material. The last few times I tuned in to those parts, I got bored pretty quickly, and the result was that I didn't want to watch the interview OR the actual Breakout Invitational games of the player involved. That's not your fault, or the fault of the player - it's just tough to get people to care unless the player's personality is entertaining/attractive in the interview. Hearing someone speak about how they used to play cheesy but now try to play more macro, or talk about balancing school/Starcraft, or some of the other stuff just isn't very entertaining for most people.
*** How to make that better *** Keep the interviews brief, or if they are going to stretch for a decent duration, make sure that some of the questions will be more entertaining rather than straight "who are you?" questions. Think of a Reddit AMA and some of the silly questions that get asked to celebrities - apply those to Starcraft and you might get some more entertaining answers. Or think back to the old GOMtv content (ie. Tastosis playing charades) and the EG content (namely Unburrowed) to draw inspiration. I haven't watched a full interview in a while so I'm not sure if you do it, but if not, open up questions to Twitter or /r/starcraft.
----------
2. As somebody else noted, there doesn't seem to be much on the line. It's a bit ironic because I tune in DUE to the fact that there are lesser known players, but then I lose interest and devalue the victories because they're only beating lesser known players. It's silly, but true.
*** How to make that better *** The BIGGEST stretch goal I can envision is a large stretch, but you might be able to make it work. Find a team and partner with them, and use the Breakout Invitational as an event to get unsigned players onto an Academy Team (ie. SEED, by winning the tournament. This might be problematic because some of the players might already be on teams, but if you can partner with a moderately prestigious team, it might work.
A more reasonable goal would be to funnel each event into a larger event. Have each Breakout Invitational's winner be entered into a Tournament of Champions at the end of the year, with a larger prize pool. So essentially, the current events would be qualifiers. This creates a better story, in my opinion, because it creates an overarching storyline. Currently, any sort of fame earned from winning the tournament doesn't have any followup. The winner gets a prize but not much else changes - they're still unlikely to be on many streams, still unlikely to get picked up by a noteworthy team for winning one invitational, and are still not that much more famous than they were before. If would be beneficial for the players, and your viewership, to keep your former winners relevant and build their own brand equity. The more we see them play, the more invested we become, and the more likely we are to tune in to watch them again.
----------
3. Too often, I don't see you wearing the quarter-zip mock neck sweater. This infuriates me and I turn off the stream.
*** How to make that better *** Buy more of them until you have one for every day of the year.
|
I would suggest having a very brief introduction to the player, then showing some gameplay highlights (not a full game) before interviewing them.
|
aaahahah awesome. he got me so sooo bad with the shirt psyche out
|
Hi Ravi! I just wanted to say that the initiative that you're putting trying to showcase the lesser-known and up-and-coming players is great! As for honest feedback, I watched some of both HuShang's and Moosegills' episodes, and I will give my feedback within the scope of those two episodes. Like some others, I'm sure, time is a commodity and I'm not able to watch a couple of hours of content all the way through. I also don't remember all the details of the shows, as I usually have a stream on in the background while doing work. That's possibly something to keep in mind as well, I will get back into that as I talk about the game portion.
First off, let's start with the interviews. Of course, interviews can only be as good as the interviewee. A limiting factor is also the quality of questions that you ask, but I think what you're asking the players is a good range of questions that work well for your idea of the show. Some people are good at answering the questions; I'm sure it'd be tough though if you had a player that didn't really give great responses, you might not get a warm reception. There isn't really a way to fix this, as you're sure to have some hits and misses depending on the player.
Something that comes to mind for me as a casual player, avid watcher, I am interested in the current events of the community and the recent tournaments. From my observations looking at SCReddit and just hearing friends talk, people care about drama, and more of the inner workings of the community than they do any run of the mill player. I like the questions of any rivalries the players have, this is important to grow the story of a player, and give them a chance to talk about something tangentially related to the game. Another good thing that would happen could be some interesting interactions they have had with a more well known pro (online or irl). Any kind of back story to keep a viewer engaged would help a lot (this might just be my bias as a writer  ).
Since you're attempting to create a story for a player, and get them to "Break Out", it would be nice to have a sort of "real talk" type interview with the player, as the whole episode, and have the games as something separate. That's why shows like State of the Game, Inside the Game, etc. were so popular, they talk about both the stories between the players and have the current events/drama. You could even have the players that are in each group all come together for an episode (or just 2 players at a time) and just have them talk about current events, and debate against one another on strategy/balance, and see who "wins" in a group debate or a heads up debate, with you as a moderator to keep the discussion on topic. The back and forth between pros could be really engaging, more than just you talking to one (not to put you down as an amateur, you're a pro personality, just not with the game ;P).
As for the games showcasing the players, this is where I seem to lose interest. Like I said earlier, I like to have some background noise on while playing a game/doing work. I'm sure since you're a software guy you probably like to have some podcasts or music on while you work. When I'm watching a game, it would take up more of my attention to see what's going on. Having to pay attention to a game/multiple games is not something that I would like in conjunction with an extensive interview with a player.
Another point about the games - many people would much rather see the showcased player play against a pro or well-known personality. I've had this discussion a few times at events and between my friends that like esports, and most people care about their favorite streamer/pro, and do not care about any smaller stuff. Having a game with a well known player would give the viewer a baseline where they have an understanding on how good someone is. If you're trying to attract newer viewers to your stream, even though you're trying to get lesser-known players more attention, it's necessary to mention "actual" pros/personalities, so that new viewers have something to compare to. Have the viewers become fans of the players. How did Stephano get big? Scarlett? They beat notable people, names more well-known than themselves. Not some random person on ladder. From HuShang's episode, the couple of games I saw weren't against anyone well-known. That wouldn't get anyone to be a fan of him (but his interview was freaking awesome, so that made me a fan ), and that translates to fewer viewers for you for future episodes.
As stated by other people, having a game cast followed by analysis is slightly redundant, I would rather have a straight-up interview, then have 3 analyses of games as a separate episode that showcases their gameplay. Then both parts could end up being roughly an hour and more digestible to a viewer. When I look for podcasts, I look for podcasts, and when I want to listen to games, I look for games.
I am looking forward to the invitational itself; as an event it will be interesting to see an event without any pro players in it for a prize. That portion of your show seems like it's great, but the player profiles could be split into personal and gameplay. I'm sorry if the ideas aren't really fleshed out, I'm tired and I was thinking of new things to write as I was writing this XD. Since this isn't an actual article I'm not really gonna go through it all that carefully D:. You're doing a great job and I hope you can make some improvements that lead to you becoming a prominent community member <3.
Hope to see you at some events this year, it was awesome hanging out with you at Anaheim twice last year !
~ Richard
tl;dr
Interviews are definitely a great idea, but split interview section and game section into separate episodes for people looking for different things (podcast vs gameplay/analysis). Love the questions you're asking. Have the players in a SotG-style podcast about events/drama/balance, either in a group or 1v1 debate-to-the-death. Have all the games be against notable pros so that a new viewer can understand how good the player is.
I am a bad writer. Go to all the events so I can hang out with you more and you can get me into twitch parties with your Breaking Out fame ;P.
/tl;dr
|
|
|
Ok! I'm back home from work and able to actually respond to the TL posts! Thank you everyone who's posted so far!
@Freedom: Thank you! I definitely agree that one of the biggest reasons people won't want to watch the show is because there's very little reason to get excited about the players. I think I need to find the reason and it has to be given immediately or there's not much of a point in the entire rest of the show(all the other 4 parts are a moot point). The idea of having multiplayer players on at once is definitely something I'm starting to consider! Thanks for the suggestion man!
@Gemini: This is something I had considered since Season 1. The reason I wasn't doing this in the past was because I wanted to be able to have a change of pace in the show. Players are already talking for the entire interview segment, so having them then ALSO talk through the entire game could get dull depending on the player since not every player is very well spoken. Not only that, but the casting segment is an opportunity I've been utilizing to bring up bigger names as guests to draw more attention to the show. The idea was, some players may not be the most interesting person to listen to, but they could still have cool games so this would allow the casted game segment to still be something that would potentially shine as the "good" part of the show. So basically, it was something that I did want to do but ended up not doing in the interest of keeping the show more interesting. The analysis segments may be the more interesting part for certain viewers(gm, master, etc.) but it's always had the lowest viewership, with the casted game tending to be the time when most people who tune in stick around. That said, I think the most recent changes to the analysis segment, where players quickly talk about just the parts they thought were interesting in 1-4 minutes does a much better job with the situation. I will be looking for better ways to make the analysis segment more interesting in the future. Possibly by asking to have another established pro on.
@Ctone: I appreciate the earnest feedback! I agree I still have a long ways to come as a host. I also agree that in retrospect, I think I do treat the players as though they've "already made it" rather than that they're getting close to making it. I agree making it more lighthearted may ease up the awkwardness a bit. You definitely aren't coming off as rude and I really appreciate the feedback. =]
@Zeromus: I think 12 weeks with the pro's worked because they were already well known and people wanted to hear from them. Almost all the players Mr. Bitter had on for the show were very well respected or established as players people *wanted* to hear from. I like the idea but I'm not sure how many people would have an earnest interest in listening to players they don't know(even if they are GM players) give their thoughts on the game based on other feedback I've seen. Maybe if they were joined by another pro, it could work though.
@11cc: I'm sorry. Not sure what you meant by audio out of sync since I didn't notice anything like that.
@yakitate: Hey! Don't worry, I know who you are. =] I pretty much agree with all your feedback! I think I'll probably have the interview segment be a thing that shows up after the players have shown themselves to be interesting rather than have it be the first thing. They would also definitely need to be a bit briefer. I like to think that there's a decent bit on the line in the tournament prize winnings(up to $2,000 at least for the past seasons), but maybe I need to make that more clear. Also, for the team idea, I think that might be difficult to do not only for the reasons you mentioned, but I don't want to antagonize teams. If teams know that players that win the tournament would be guaranteed a spot on a bigger team, teams would have reasons to NOT have their players play in it. It's definitely something I've thought about reaching out to team owners and ask them about in the past, but ended up deciding against it. I do agree that there's not a lot of followup for the show right now and it's something I will definitely be looking into improving. Lastly, I do need more quarter-zip mock neck sweaters. =[
@Ophidian: I agree! This is definitely one of the things I'll be trying to do in the future. Having their application video or even the interview happen before giving viewers a reason to care about the player I think was a bad decision on my part. I originally had it that way so that I could provide context for who they were before the played and get a description of their playstyle, but I think the trade off isn't worth it.
@Nozemsagogo: I have no idea what you just said.
@Richard: Thanks! I agree about the interviews being a bit tough & I also agree I think I need to work on the questions I'm asking a bit. There's a lot of fluff in there that I think I really don't need. As for getting more context for the player in terms of rivalries and whatnot, I think that's pretty important as well. As for the "real talk" thing, I used to actually do that for Season 1 and 2 but most people had even less interest. I think the problem of "listening to someone they didn't know talk for 30 min to an hour straight" exacerbated the problem I'm seeing now of people saying even 7 minutes for interview segments being too long. Even the game segments would actually get fairly low view counts thought those segments would do better on twitch. The analysis segments pretty much always did the worst unfortunately, so maybe instead of breaking them up, I just need to do a more drastic rebasing of the format for the show. Maybe having them on in a group would be something I could do to make up for some players not being quite as well spoken though as you mentioned! I like that idea. I think I will definitely get more established pro players involved in the future to keep things driven more toward an "underdog vs topdog" story. Thanks for the feedback and sorry if it seems like I glossed over what you said. It's more just that I agree with most of what you're saying besides the points I mentioned! Thanks a ton for the feedback man and I hope we get to hang out at more events in the future! <3
@Gofarman: Thank you! That's actually helpful information to know. =]
|
France1887 Posts
I stopped watching after the player video, around 4 minutes in I believe. One of the first questions being "What are your hobbies outside of StarCraft?" was weird to me. I kept watching because it was a little funny.
I stopped watching not really because I was bored, but because I don't have much time to watch SC2 videos, and I feel like there is better content to watch. (I haven't watched the NAVERS2SL finals VODs for example.)
|
0:27 not target audience.
Zoom on thor in intro didn't work for me. Generally decreasing interest from start until stop.
|
I dunno, watching a guy I don't know about talking in his dimly lit bedroom doesn't really appeal to me, If I'm going to be brutally honest.
Then you guys start commentating on a single PvZ game? I don't even like PvZ cos I'm terran.
Sorry to be so brutal but that's what you asked for :D
|
Here we go, brutally honest. I stopped watching pretty fast, but skipped some parts to hear/watch cast and give my opinion on everything.
1) NA players, me and probably majority of SC2 community doesn't want to watch unknown NA players playing. These players are high master/low-mid GM on NA which is probably low/mid master on EU and those games are usually not entertaining or something me or casual viewer can learn from. Even if they were unknown EU players I still wouldn't watch.
2) Casting seemed like 2 friends obsing a game and talking about old times rather than a professional cast, mixed in with not the best players leaves little desire for me to keep watching.
3) Obsing not the best, but not the worst either. People hate when action is missed around the map.
Parts I liked:
1) I liked the funny interview part, but do I want to watch them for every player? No.
2) Editing was good and make the whole video more..enjoyable and seemed like it can be good quality cast/show.
3) The effort and the idea to try something new, but Starcraft II community is made out of hardcore fans and not so many casuals and they want to see high level Starcraft II, not these kinds of games.
My advice:
1) Keep the editing thing going, it's good.
2) Take all that money and create some interesting new format or make an invitational tournament with qualifiers. I'll give you an idea. Instead of spending Breaking Out 3 seasons and spending 3000$ - create a tournament that's EU vs NA players 10 vs 10 and make them Bo5, you can make lengthy show out of that and have pre game interviews with the players. That mean's 300$ per Bo5 which will allow you to invite pretty much any foreign player to play in it.
3) If you decide to follow my advice so far, you become a host and do pre game interviews with the players and after the game as well. Find already established casters to cast the games, you become more of an organizer/host.
4) Set up a tip jar to have future show matches between NA vs KR, EU vs KR or just have EU vs NA again.
5) Your editing and host skills would make you a good "top 5 plays of the week in competitive scene kind of thing", make them look cool and stuff and you can get following that way as well. If you do this just make "top 5 worst plays of the week", coz why not
I hope I helped and gave you some ideas, good luck in the future!
|
00:51
I don't care about NA scene since I no longer expect good players coming from there  (just started watching to see what those under-1-minute-stoppers were talking about^^). A hint though: cut back on the fast animations, they are too hectic for my taste.
Seriously though I don't get why players should be put into the spotlight before they achieve anything significant. Why would anyone be interested in random NA GMs with pretty much nothing under their belt. If I want to see some up and coming players, I watch the Go4SC2 cups or similar stuff (i.e. pretty much anything from BasetradeTV).
Appreciate the effort though
|
It should be noted, I only watched part 1 of the embedded video.
Realistically, I got bored during the "audition" video segment. If I am interested in learning about a new player, I would prefer to directly go to their gameplay or their personality (interview) as opposed to watching them explain why they should be on the show.
The interview itself was alright, but almost felt as though HuShang was not really interested in it or kind of brushing it off. There is not a whole lot you can do about this other than trying to guide the questions in a direction that they are more interested/passionate about. This could distract from the primary goal of letting us get to know the player.
Next up, I feel like because of the fact that these are lesser known players, instead of going into a general cast of one of their games, go straight to the analysis segment and highlight what the player is doing different, what the player is doing better compared to your average GM player and what makes you believe (from their gameplay) that they could be the next "breakout" player. These are the things that I care about if I am going to watch something highlighting a possible "break out" player.
At any rate, production quality is good and I can tell that you spent time and effort in working on it.
I should also note that I like the idea of Beastyqt of turning it more into a ShoutCraft style event that lets you see/get to know the players a bit (with pre-game interviews and what not) while also giving them an arena to prove themselves (against players for money). Maybe instead of doing a solid NA vs EU with open qualifiers (like he suggested), you could make it more of pitting these players that have potential against some established players that already have teams. This would allow the viewer to truly see their potential when they play against players they already know about. Of course, running an event and running qualifiers for said event will probably cost more than most are willing to invest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
