|
|
On January 31 2015 10:06 Wuster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 09:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 31 2015 09:51 Sponkz wrote:On January 31 2015 09:33 Esoterikk wrote:On January 31 2015 03:40 Jetaap wrote:On January 31 2015 03:09 FreeZEternal wrote:
Solo Q is miserable guys. It's starting to get a point where ppl just leave the game (Raged quit) and you are SOL. The thing is, the game encourages you to grind games mindlessly (for example play 8 games), so naturally people are going to play and do other things on the side.. Even ranked encourages you to grind since you essentially can't not hit rank 1 after you play enough games unless you literally have no clue how to play the game. I think a 30% win rate will get you rank 1 with enough games. I just got to rank 1 today with 114-79 and according to hotslogs I'm only 3200 MMR. I don't get this system at all, it's the most broken piece of shit I've ever come across. Master league is the top 1% of hotslog so if ranks are uniformly distributed with 2% of the population in each rank then your rank isn't out of the question. I think it's a safe assumption that your rank on HotsLog is underreported too, since are bronze leaguers and other newbies really uploading replays?
Wait, you have to upload replays on hotslogs to get your stats? Because I didn't upload anything and I can see my stats, but they're not accurate at all. By not accurate I mean, there's a lot of missing games as well hero levels not being correct.
|
On January 31 2015 10:16 DPK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 10:06 Wuster wrote:On January 31 2015 09:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 31 2015 09:51 Sponkz wrote:On January 31 2015 09:33 Esoterikk wrote:On January 31 2015 03:40 Jetaap wrote:On January 31 2015 03:09 FreeZEternal wrote:
Solo Q is miserable guys. It's starting to get a point where ppl just leave the game (Raged quit) and you are SOL. The thing is, the game encourages you to grind games mindlessly (for example play 8 games), so naturally people are going to play and do other things on the side.. Even ranked encourages you to grind since you essentially can't not hit rank 1 after you play enough games unless you literally have no clue how to play the game. I think a 30% win rate will get you rank 1 with enough games. I just got to rank 1 today with 114-79 and according to hotslogs I'm only 3200 MMR. I don't get this system at all, it's the most broken piece of shit I've ever come across. Master league is the top 1% of hotslog so if ranks are uniformly distributed with 2% of the population in each rank then your rank isn't out of the question. I think it's a safe assumption that your rank on HotsLog is underreported too, since are bronze leaguers and other newbies really uploading replays? Wait, you have to upload replays on hotslogs to get your stats? Because I didn't upload anything and I can see my stats, but they're not accurate at all.
One of the ten people in the game has to upload the game. If you aren't doing them all yourself then chances are you are missing some. If you're in the upper levels like master/diamond league then most of your games will be uploaded by other players.
|
On January 31 2015 10:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 10:16 DPK wrote:On January 31 2015 10:06 Wuster wrote:On January 31 2015 09:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 31 2015 09:51 Sponkz wrote:On January 31 2015 09:33 Esoterikk wrote:On January 31 2015 03:40 Jetaap wrote:On January 31 2015 03:09 FreeZEternal wrote:
Solo Q is miserable guys. It's starting to get a point where ppl just leave the game (Raged quit) and you are SOL. The thing is, the game encourages you to grind games mindlessly (for example play 8 games), so naturally people are going to play and do other things on the side.. Even ranked encourages you to grind since you essentially can't not hit rank 1 after you play enough games unless you literally have no clue how to play the game. I think a 30% win rate will get you rank 1 with enough games. I just got to rank 1 today with 114-79 and according to hotslogs I'm only 3200 MMR. I don't get this system at all, it's the most broken piece of shit I've ever come across. Master league is the top 1% of hotslog so if ranks are uniformly distributed with 2% of the population in each rank then your rank isn't out of the question. I think it's a safe assumption that your rank on HotsLog is underreported too, since are bronze leaguers and other newbies really uploading replays? Wait, you have to upload replays on hotslogs to get your stats? Because I didn't upload anything and I can see my stats, but they're not accurate at all. One of the ten people in the game has to upload the game. If you aren't doing them all yourself then chances are you are missing some. If you're in the upper levels like master/diamond league then most of your games will be uploaded by other players.
Ok thanks a lot, didn't knew that. And yeah I'm only bronze so no biggie.
|
United States63 Posts
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively?
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively?
That's a really dangerous question that probably will end badly considering the amount of responses just over which of dota or hots is more complex.
|
On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively?
LoL already is the most successful, HoTS is way too late to the party.
|
On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively?
Not sure why Smite is included in this lol. I won't comment on which game I think is the best for competitive play for obvious reasons but when it comes to the most successful competitively, numbers speaks for itself and LoL is winning by a large margin.
|
On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively?
This isn't a question we can answer, it depends on how you quantify successful. I enjoy Hots more than the other ones so to me it's more successful.
|
On January 31 2015 11:21 Esoterikk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively? This isn't a question we can answer, it depends on how you quantify successful. I enjoy Hots more than the other ones so to me it's more successful.
I too enjoy hots more than other mobas but when it comes to success in the competitive scene, LoL is winning.
|
United States63 Posts
On January 31 2015 11:12 Valiver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively? That's a really dangerous question that probably will end badly considering the amount of responses just over which of dota or hots is more complex.
I like danger
|
On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively?
Hearthstone is an esport competitive game because its easy accessibility and free to play offering has built up a large user base. it also doesn't have any competitor other than MtG which requires monetary investment.
I don't think the same approach of putting a Blizzard spin on the genre & making it F2P will work with HotS though
LoL is #1 and DotA is #2 and I think their positions will be cemented like that for quite a while
I've watched HotS in spurts (mostly during BlizzCon) and I didn't see much in the way of players being able to showcase superior mechanical skill.
LoL's game mechanics allow stars to rise via pure mechanical plays / outplays
HotS needs the same for spectator value. if there isn't enough, then it will follow the same path of SC2 of not being entertaining enough and diminish as an esport.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
lol
Sorry. I couldnt help bit laugh. StarCraft isn't as big not because it isn't entertaining, cause its the most entertaining of all and the viewer/playerbase relation is the biggest for sc2 of all the big exports,meaning that more people watch the game pero player. (Idk how to explain that I hope it's clear enough ". The reason SC isn't as big is because it's played base isn't as big and because it has too Mich complexity.
|
On January 31 2015 12:13 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
lol
Sorry. I couldnt help bit laugh. StarCraft isn't as big not because it isn't entertaining, cause its the most entertaining of all and the viewer/playerbase relation is the biggest for sc2 of all the big exports,meaning that more people watch the game pero player. (Idk how to explain that I hope it's clear enough ". The reason SC isn't as big is because it's played base isn't as big and because it has too Mich complexity.
I want to know where you get that number from. SCBW was more complex than SC2 and was bigger than SC2 at their respective peaks.
|
On January 31 2015 11:51 udgnim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 10:47 GinyuSC wrote:
Out of this game, Smite, Dota 2, and LoL which do you think is the best for competitive play? Also which do you think will be most succesful competitively? Hearthstone is an esport competitive game because its easy accessibility and free to play offering has built up a large user base. it also doesn't have any competitor other than MtG which requires monetary investment. I don't think the same approach of putting a Blizzard spin on the genre & making it F2P will work with HotS though LoL is #1 and DotA is #2 and I think their positions will be cemented like that for quite a while I've watched HotS in spurts (mostly during BlizzCon) and I didn't see much in the way of players being able to showcase superior mechanical skill. LoL's game mechanics allow stars to rise via pure mechanical plays / outplays HotS needs the same for spectator value. if there isn't enough, then it will follow the same path of SC2 of not being entertaining enough and diminish as an esport.
Hots is less about individual skill and more about team coordination, if you haven't watched competitive Hots lately you are making a pretty baseless assumption about it's ability to be enjoyable to watch. I hate how people need to quantify sustainability with levels of LoL/Dota viewership.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
I write articles, so once i made one based on the three biggest esports at the time (sc2, dota2 and lol) and if sc2 was really dying. Based on the available official data from riot/blizzard/valve, and data from other sites (sc2ranks, kind of like hotslogs) and came to the conclution that around 2.6% of all sc2 active players watched sc2 tournaments at their peak viewer (that is, if the WCS got 200k viewers, i used that number to calculate the percentage, so i compared the 200k viewers that sc2 got at the time to the 400k league of legends got the last tournament). So, while in sc2 that number was around 2.6% in league of legends it was around 1.2%, making starcraft 2 as an esport actually more popular than lol, and the only reason lol doubled sc2 on viewers at the time was simply because its playerbase was bigger among other reasons like in general, sc2 players were also more "hardcore". This was around a year ago so maybe it has changed, and i don't remember the exact numbers so maybe it has changed. I will probably look for it and re-do it one day with recent data, could be cool.
BW and sc2 can't really be compared because they were from different ages, but altough i can't say for certain, im pretty sure sc2 was more popular than BW globally. Yeah, in korea BW was more popular by a large magin, but i think sc2 was more popular worldwinde at its peak than BW. (can't say for sure though).
Also i fear this game might end up having the same problem sc2 had: since the game doesn't achieve the same numbers as dota and lol people say its dying, and that generates a bad envoirment that causes the game to really die off. People need to understand that there are more esports that are sostenible than dota 2 and lol, and that before them esports were doing fine with way less viewer numbers.
|
On January 31 2015 13:34 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 12:13 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
lol
Sorry. I couldnt help bit laugh. StarCraft isn't as big not because it isn't entertaining, cause its the most entertaining of all and the viewer/playerbase relation is the biggest for sc2 of all the big exports,meaning that more people watch the game pero player. (Idk how to explain that I hope it's clear enough ". The reason SC isn't as big is because it's played base isn't as big and because it has too Mich complexity. I want to know where you get that number from. SCBW was more complex than SC2 and was bigger than SC2 at their respective peaks.
It's not complexity. Dota and league are very much complex games, if you define complex as 'pieces in the game that you need to learn'. There's shitloads of items, abilities, heroes and units and other stuff you need to learn and that's before we even start with concepts like laning, ganking, hero roles, team fighting, item and skill builds. I think that in these terms Starcraft is a much less complex game. It's easier to learn what everything does and get a good feel for the units. But Dota and League are fucking enormous and sc2 isn't. Why is that?
Well, plenty of reasons but here's probably the biggest one. What makes Starcraft unique among games is the enormous mechanical skill requirement. Even with it's easier UI, SC2 is still so incredibly difficult to start playing. I remember back in 2010, Destiny began laddering a new account from bronze upwards where he would only make Queens, drones and overlords, and see how many people he could beat with just his mechanics. He made it to platinum league as I recall. It's like if you started playing a Dota account in which you never bought items on your heroes or laddering Hearthstone with only the premade basic decks, it's such a severe handicap. But thanks to his mechanics he was able to beat a lot of people with the least effective attacking unit in the game.
My point is this. There's a certain amount of mechanical skill one needs to develop before you start playing a game properly, when you can start learning about gameplay concepts. In a moba it's once you learn how to control a single hero and figure out which keys on your keyboard are the QWER ones. It's not hard. In an FPS you learn WASD and how to shoot and you're ready. In hearthstone you spend 15 minutes on the tutorial and bam, you now know everything you need to start learning the actual game. In Starcraft, this doesn't begin until Diamond league. Anyone who is platinum league or lower doesn't have to concern themselves almost at all with learning the various matchups because their execution simply isn't there for it to matter. The most common advice to new players is just "develop mechanics", because that really is the most important part. And as much as mechanics are fun I kinda think this is a bit of a turnoff for a lot of people.
The other big reason I think is just how nasty losing can feel sometimes, especially to very small things that very quickly decide the entire game. Didn't see that proxy? No turret and there's DT's in your base? Oracle showed up? Didn't think you needed that extra bunker? Weren't looking at your marines for a few seconds and suddenly banelings? Weren't looking at your probes for a few seconds and suddenly widow mines? Well fuck you search again fucker.
You can have tons of complexity in games, they just need to start from a very simple place. Starcraft kinda doesn't. Mobas kinda do.
EDIT- I'll also add that those two points I've mentioned are two things Heroes addresses really well. For starters there's a good tutorial for this game as well as a small free hero pool. I initially disliked the idea of a small hero rotation because I play dota 2 and that game gives you all of them for free. But then I realised that if you're new to this game then it's best to start off with a small hero pool that gradually adds in more heroes as you go. You don't want to be seeing 10 different heroes every game that's going to confuse the fuck out of you. I kinda respect this choice (though I massively disrespect the pricing structure to get new heroes but that's a different post).
Secondly it's incredibly difficult to snowball in this game. Sure a team that gets ahead stays ahead but that's because they're stronger players and not because their lead is insurmountable. I've had plenty of games where one side caught up on experience despite being plenty of kills behind and currently my biggest comeback result ended with a score of 15-40. This game kills you in a very slow gentle manner and I respect that a lot. I'm kinda thinking of doing a massive write up of all my thoughts about this game but most of it's accessibility stuff is really good. Kudos to Browder and co.
|
On January 31 2015 14:07 ROOTiaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 13:34 ref4 wrote:On January 31 2015 12:13 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
lol
Sorry. I couldnt help bit laugh. StarCraft isn't as big not because it isn't entertaining, cause its the most entertaining of all and the viewer/playerbase relation is the biggest for sc2 of all the big exports,meaning that more people watch the game pero player. (Idk how to explain that I hope it's clear enough ". The reason SC isn't as big is because it's played base isn't as big and because it has too Mich complexity. I want to know where you get that number from. SCBW was more complex than SC2 and was bigger than SC2 at their respective peaks. It's not complexity. Dota and league are very much complex games, if you define complex as 'pieces in the game that you need to learn'. There's shitloads of items, abilities, heroes and units and other stuff you need to learn and that's before we even start with concepts like laning, ganking, hero roles, team fighting, item and skill builds. I think that in these terms Starcraft is a much less complex game. It's easier to learn what everything does and get a good feel for the units. But Dota and League are fucking enormous and sc2 isn't. Why is that? Well, plenty of reasons but here's probably the biggest one. What makes Starcraft unique among games is the enormous mechanical skill requirement. Even with it's easier UI, SC2 is still so incredibly difficult to start playing. I remember back in 2010, Destiny began laddering a new account from bronze upwards where he would only make Queens, drones and overlords, and see how many people he could beat with just his mechanics. He made it to platinum league as I recall. It's like if you started playing a Dota account in which you never bought items on your heroes or laddering Hearthstone with only the premade basic decks, it's such a severe handicap. But thanks to his mechanics he was able to beat a lot of people with the least effective attacking unit in the game. My point is this. There's a certain amount of mechanical skill one needs to develop before you start playing a game properly, when you can start learning about gameplay concepts. In a moba it's once you learn how to control a single hero and figure out which keys on your keyboard are the QWER ones. It's not hard. In an FPS you learn WASD and how to shoot and you're ready. In hearthstone you spend 15 minutes on the tutorial and bam, you now know everything you need to start learning the actual game. In Starcraft, this doesn't begin until Diamond league. Anyone who is platinum league or lower doesn't have to concern themselves almost at all with learning the various matchups because their execution simply isn't there for it to matter. The most common advice to new players is just "develop mechanics", because that really is the most important part. And as much as mechanics are fun I kinda think this is a bit of a turnoff for a lot of people. The other big reason I think is just how nasty losing can feel sometimes, especially to very small things that very quickly decide the entire game. Didn't see that proxy? No turret and there's DT's in your base? Oracle showed up? Didn't think you needed that extra bunker? Weren't looking at your marines for a few seconds and suddenly banelings? Weren't looking at your probes for a few seconds and suddenly widow mines? Well fuck you search again fucker. You can have tons of complexity in games, they just need to start from a very simple place. Starcraft kinda doesn't. Mobas kinda do. EDIT- I'll also add that those two points I've mentioned are two things Heroes addresses really well. For starters there's a good tutorial for this game as well as a small free hero pool. I initially disliked the idea of a small hero rotation because I play dota 2 and that game gives you all of them for free. But then I realised that if you're new to this game then it's best to start off with a small hero pool that gradually adds in more heroes as you go. You don't want to be seeing 10 different heroes every game that's going to confuse the fuck out of you. I kinda respect this choice (though I massively disrespect the pricing structure to get new heroes but that's a different post). Secondly it's incredibly difficult to snowball in this game. Sure a team that gets ahead stays ahead but that's because they're stronger players and not because their lead is insurmountable. I've had plenty of games where one side caught up on experience despite being plenty of kills behind and currently my biggest comeback result ended with a score of 15-40. This game kills you in a very slow gentle manner and I respect that a lot. I'm kinda thinking of doing a massive write up of all my thoughts about this game but most of it's accessibility stuff is really good. Kudos to Browder and co.
MOBAs are complex in their knowledge. SCII/SCBW are complex in their mechanical execution. Well BW more so because you are fighting against the shitty UI half the time.
|
On January 31 2015 14:42 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 14:07 ROOTiaguz wrote:On January 31 2015 13:34 ref4 wrote:On January 31 2015 12:13 [SXG]Phantom wrote:
lol
Sorry. I couldnt help bit laugh. StarCraft isn't as big not because it isn't entertaining, cause its the most entertaining of all and the viewer/playerbase relation is the biggest for sc2 of all the big exports,meaning that more people watch the game pero player. (Idk how to explain that I hope it's clear enough ". The reason SC isn't as big is because it's played base isn't as big and because it has too Mich complexity. I want to know where you get that number from. SCBW was more complex than SC2 and was bigger than SC2 at their respective peaks. It's not complexity. Dota and league are very much complex games, if you define complex as 'pieces in the game that you need to learn'. There's shitloads of items, abilities, heroes and units and other stuff you need to learn and that's before we even start with concepts like laning, ganking, hero roles, team fighting, item and skill builds. I think that in these terms Starcraft is a much less complex game. It's easier to learn what everything does and get a good feel for the units. But Dota and League are fucking enormous and sc2 isn't. Why is that? Well, plenty of reasons but here's probably the biggest one. What makes Starcraft unique among games is the enormous mechanical skill requirement. Even with it's easier UI, SC2 is still so incredibly difficult to start playing. I remember back in 2010, Destiny began laddering a new account from bronze upwards where he would only make Queens, drones and overlords, and see how many people he could beat with just his mechanics. He made it to platinum league as I recall. It's like if you started playing a Dota account in which you never bought items on your heroes or laddering Hearthstone with only the premade basic decks, it's such a severe handicap. But thanks to his mechanics he was able to beat a lot of people with the least effective attacking unit in the game. My point is this. There's a certain amount of mechanical skill one needs to develop before you start playing a game properly, when you can start learning about gameplay concepts. In a moba it's once you learn how to control a single hero and figure out which keys on your keyboard are the QWER ones. It's not hard. In an FPS you learn WASD and how to shoot and you're ready. In hearthstone you spend 15 minutes on the tutorial and bam, you now know everything you need to start learning the actual game. In Starcraft, this doesn't begin until Diamond league. Anyone who is platinum league or lower doesn't have to concern themselves almost at all with learning the various matchups because their execution simply isn't there for it to matter. The most common advice to new players is just "develop mechanics", because that really is the most important part. And as much as mechanics are fun I kinda think this is a bit of a turnoff for a lot of people. The other big reason I think is just how nasty losing can feel sometimes, especially to very small things that very quickly decide the entire game. Didn't see that proxy? No turret and there's DT's in your base? Oracle showed up? Didn't think you needed that extra bunker? Weren't looking at your marines for a few seconds and suddenly banelings? Weren't looking at your probes for a few seconds and suddenly widow mines? Well fuck you search again fucker. You can have tons of complexity in games, they just need to start from a very simple place. Starcraft kinda doesn't. Mobas kinda do. EDIT- I'll also add that those two points I've mentioned are two things Heroes addresses really well. For starters there's a good tutorial for this game as well as a small free hero pool. I initially disliked the idea of a small hero rotation because I play dota 2 and that game gives you all of them for free. But then I realised that if you're new to this game then it's best to start off with a small hero pool that gradually adds in more heroes as you go. You don't want to be seeing 10 different heroes every game that's going to confuse the fuck out of you. I kinda respect this choice (though I massively disrespect the pricing structure to get new heroes but that's a different post). Secondly it's incredibly difficult to snowball in this game. Sure a team that gets ahead stays ahead but that's because they're stronger players and not because their lead is insurmountable. I've had plenty of games where one side caught up on experience despite being plenty of kills behind and currently my biggest comeback result ended with a score of 15-40. This game kills you in a very slow gentle manner and I respect that a lot. I'm kinda thinking of doing a massive write up of all my thoughts about this game but most of it's accessibility stuff is really good. Kudos to Browder and co. MOBAs are complex in their knowledge. SCII/SCBW are complex in their mechanical execution. Well BW more so because you are fighting against the shitty UI half the time.
That UI made the game even more interesting.. just like age of empires 2 
|
I write articles, so once i made one based on the three biggest esports at the time (sc2, dota2 and lol) and if sc2 was really dying. Based on the available official data from riot/blizzard/valve, and data from other sites (sc2ranks, kind of like hotslogs) and came to the conclution that around 2.6% of all sc2 active players watched sc2 tournaments at their peak viewer (that is, if the WCS got 200k viewers, i used that number to calculate the percentage, so i compared the 200k viewers that sc2 got at the time to the 400k league of legends got the last tournament).
You actually imply that Sc2 had 7.6M active players, but that's closer to total copies sold. If you look at those who log on monthly, the discrepancy between the viewer/players ratio is much much higher for Sc2 than for League of Legends. One thin to take into account is that LOL is slightly more of a casual game and those has more players with a relaxed attitude that isn't interested in following esports - regardless of the game. You also have to take into account whether you compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. For instance if you look at global playerbase, but only Twitch viewer numbers, that can result in misleading conclusions.
But without a doubt, Sc2 is also an easier game to appreciate. The thing about LOL is that you need to be interested in the teams or the personalities to watch the game. While most Sc2 fans can appreciate skilled players, regardless of whether they are unknowns or not. Moreover, it's also worth to remember that Sc2 has had an incredibly stale meta for a while while Riot shifts balance around quite frequently. I wonder what LOL viewer numbers would look like if there only were 30 champions which were viable for the last 2 years.
TLDR: It's easier to appreciate skill in an RTS than a MOBA, which makes it a better viewer-experience. MOBA's are more reliant on viewers being personally interested in the teams/players.
|
It does but that shit doesn't really fly anymore these days. If you re-released broodwar in the present day it would get slammed into a corner for being so buggy and frustrating. BW, and AoE 2 as well I guess, are the only games we let get away with this bullshit because we know how good they are since we played them at a time when UI's were allowed to be this bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
