|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
New competitive league for Overwatch was just announced by Blizzard. The main talking points are
- Permanent teams; league will operate on a franchise system
- Teams will be formed 'locally'. The exact implications of this are not confirmed yet, but it seems likely that it amounts to some level of region lock
- Blizzard will be in control of the league, akin to Riot's control over LCS
- Prizepool starting at 7 figures
- Regular scheduled tournaments and an off season
- Talent scouting 'tournament' where aspiring pros are tested and team owners have the opportunity to sign upcoming talent.
- Contracts have minimum standards enforced (e.g. minimum salary)
- Expected start is Q3 2017
More information
|
On November 05 2016 03:54 Plexa wrote:
[*]Blizzard will be in control of the league, akin to Riot's control over LCS
]
Not akin to Blizzard's control over WCS? 
|
i said this in another thread... ATVI spent half the investor call talking about how Overwatch eSports would take over the world.
Career opporunities here people!
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-overwatch-esports-blizzcon-20161103-story.html
"Potential team owners are expected to bid millions of dollars in the coming months to be one of the league’s founding members. Their team’s slot in the league would be permanent. "
Blizzard pioneered esports! it wasn't a bunch of smart promoters in Korea. it was Blizzard that made eSports what it was with Brood War!
|
Although I like the premiss of the whole I also see a lot of flaws and have a lot of questions that are not yet being answered by Blizzard. As some of these questions are very fundamental I'm wondering how they can implement the idea and sell it to the prospective team owners.
One of my dislikes is the fact that there is no relegation. I think Blizzard is absolutely wrong in going this direction with permanent spots for teams in the league.This way there is absolutely no incentive for smaller well run teams with good management to excell and have a shot at the big league next year. It will be a boring slugfest of the same teams year and year again.
The argument that permanent spots for teams is better for owners and sponsors is also invalid imo. Teams performing in the lower spots of the league will have smaller sponsors because of the risk of relegation, that's true but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to attract sufficient sponsors. It's all about smartly allocating the money you do have and at the very least outperforming the teams from the lower league that are ready to pounce and eat you up in the relegation. It probably is also better for owners but not in a good way. Owners from teams who don't perform have no incentive to try to do better as they know they can never lose their spot. Why would you try to improve your team management, tactics, how you handle your players or whatever if you are guaranteed a spot next year anyway. This is an invitation for mismanagement without consequences.
I have also read somewhere else (on a Dutch news site) that the combine would also include a draft (not sure if that's already implicated in the combine, don't know a lot about this typical American system). If Blizzard is dead set on the fixed spots for teams I see how this would work in a sport like the NFL where every team has I think about 60 players and all positions are filled three deep. What I don't see is how this could ever work with a team that has only 6 players and one or two stand-ins. There is no depth in the line-up to trade one of your 6 line-backers you never use in a game anyway to gain a better spot in the draft. And with a line-up this small there will always be the occasional moment where it might be better to change the whole line-up instead of just changing 1 or 2 positions. How will that be possible with a draft? Imo the combine/draft is also again more geared towards sponsorship and giving the sponsors a false sense of stability instead of improving the game/league dynamics. I say a false sense of stability because this systems ensures the sponsors knowing what core of players will play for the team for some time but false because with a team size this small it's sometimes better to make a drastic change in the team instead of having problems fester for years because there is no room to really solve it. And festering problems between players can screw with your results for years and thus making the team unapealing for the sponsors the team otherwise could have gained/preserved.
I also think it's a bad move by Blizzard to already include outside parties at this stage in the meeting at Blizzcon. I feel Blizzard should have first talked with the current team owners for the leagues. If an outside party then wanted to have a piece of the action they would have been forced to buy one of the current teams. Now I feel Blizzard is shafting the teams that have helped grow Overwatch to where it is and who perhaps don't have the capital to go forward in the pace Blizzard wants. Imo Blizzard should have set a capital standard for teams to be included in the new league. This would have given the smaller teams the oportunity to eather raise the capital themselves or sell to an outside party (and gaining something for their hard work in the process).
And only if Blizzard would allow the bigger Esports organisations to operate a team in each region the region lock would be a good idea. Esports is by essence a global thing and if an organisation can have only one team and that team can only play other teams from (for example) the American region you are cutting the fanbase of the team to bits. And thus the appeal of the organisation towards sponsors.
|
One of the oldest Finnish sports teams HIFK announced yesterday that they have formed an Overwatch team for the league. The team is called Helsinki REDS.
Team consists of mostly unknown players to me.
Roope ”Ruape” Kurkela
Jani ”Exceed” Kosonen
Eemeli ”Woomera” Ikonen
Ville ”PrettyWise” Mikkonen
Miika ”BBR” Tekoniemi
Toni “Effix” Hurme
Source in Finnish
|
On November 05 2016 17:41 Golden Ghost wrote:
Although I like the premiss of the whole I also see a lot of flaws
you make some good points thx for taking the time to post.
Blizzard is great at making games.. like "best in the world" great... and Blizzard is mediocre at everything else.
they need to hand this league off to someone else. if Blizz has the balls to sign a cheque and let someone else run the league it has a shot. If Blizzard is involved in this league from top to bottom it won't go well.
Kotick is shouting from the rooftops about how great his new eSports ATVI subsidiary is.. give it to him. if it dies an ugly death Blizzard takes zero blame.
|
On November 05 2016 17:41 Golden Ghost wrote:
Although I like the premiss of the whole I also see a lot of flaws and have a lot of questions that are not yet being answered by Blizzard. As some of these questions are very fundamental I'm wondering how they can implement the idea and sell it to the prospective team owners.
(1.) One of my dislikes is the fact that there is no relegation. I think Blizzard is absolutely wrong in going this direction with permanent spots for teams in the league.This way there is absolutely no incentive for smaller well run teams with good management to excell and have a shot at the big league next year. It will be a boring slugfest of the same teams year and year again.
The argument that permanent spots for teams is better for owners and sponsors is also invalid imo. Teams performing in the lower spots of the league will have smaller sponsors because of the risk of relegation, that's true but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to attract sufficient sponsors. It's all about smartly allocating the money you do have and at the very least outperforming the teams from the lower league that are ready to pounce and eat you up in the relegation. It probably is also better for owners but not in a good way.
(2.) Owners from teams who don't perform have no incentive to try to do better as they know they can never lose their spot. Why would you try to improve your team management, tactics, how you handle your players or whatever if you are guaranteed a spot next year anyway. This is an invitation for mismanagement without consequences.
(3.)I have also read somewhere else (on a Dutch news site) that the combine would also include a draft (not sure if that's already implicated in the combine, don't know a lot about this typical American system). If Blizzard is dead set on the fixed spots for teams I see how this would work in a sport like the NFL where every team has I think about 60 players and all positions are filled three deep. What I don't see is how this could ever work with a team that has only 6 players and one or two stand-ins. There is no depth in the line-up to trade one of your 6 line-backers you never use in a game anyway to gain a better spot in the draft. And with a line-up this small there will always be the occasional moment where it might be better to change the whole line-up instead of just changing 1 or 2 positions. How will that be possible with a draft? Imo the combine/draft is also again more geared towards sponsorship and giving the sponsors a false sense of stability instead of improving the game/league dynamics. I say a false sense of stability because this systems ensures the sponsors knowing what core of players will play for the team for some time but false because with a team size this small it's sometimes better to make a drastic change in the team instead of having problems fester for years because there is no room to really solve it. And festering problems between players can screw with your results for years and thus making the team unapealing for the sponsors the team otherwise could have gained/preserved.
(4.)I also think it's a bad move by Blizzard to already include outside parties at this stage in the meeting at Blizzcon. I feel Blizzard should have first talked with the current team owners for the leagues. If an outside party then wanted to have a piece of the action they would have been forced to buy one of the current teams. Now I feel Blizzard is shafting the teams that have helped grow Overwatch to where it is and who perhaps don't have the capital to go forward in the pace Blizzard wants. Imo Blizzard should have set a capital standard for teams to be included in the new league. This would have given the smaller teams the oportunity to eather raise the capital themselves or sell to an outside party (and gaining something for their hard work in the process).
(5.)And only if Blizzard would allow the bigger Esports organisations to operate a team in each region the region lock would be a good idea. Esports is by essence a global thing and if an organisation can have only one team and that team can only play other teams from (for example) the American region you are cutting the fanbase of the team to bits. And thus the appeal of the organisation towards sponsors.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not fully sold on the league either, but I think it's a great advance for the world of eSports, and, if done right, could be the best thing to happen to compeitive gaming in a long, long time (or maybe ever). Just laying out some points I think relevant below.
DISCLAIMER 2: I'm using a lot of sports analogies below. I'm aware that eSports and "real" sports are not the same, but I think this type of league is more similar to the NFL, NBA, mixed
with LCS, than anything else.
1.) So you say that teams in the lower tiers of the league will not be able to attract as many sponsors, but that they will still get sufficient money. Going to fully disagree, I think Team 8 from Proleague is a perfect example of how a badly performing team will eventually collapse without good sponsorship. It's not like money just naturally flows into these teams, it has to come from somewhere, and bad teams will get bad money, meaning they can't attract good players, meaning they keep losing, and on the cycle goes until they're forced to disband. I'm assuming Blizzard will still allow teams to disband and new ones to form in their place, as I can't think of another alternative. I would like to see any evidence of a professional team that has managed to survive and succeed for a long time (read: 2+ years) from the day they fall behind the rest of their eSport in sponsor $$$.
2.) You claim that "owners from teams who don't perform have no incentive to try to do better as they know they can never lose their spot." True, permanent slots are a safety net, but that safety net is a necessary thing -- one of the reasons why eSports has been restricted in growth thus far is that it is too volatile from the perspective of investors. Moreover, as you said yourself in point (1), there is, in fact, incentive to perform well even with a permanent slot: sponsorships. Don't forget glory -- money isn't the only motivation for sports leagues.
3.) This might be your best point -- without drafting, trading, and free-agent rules specifically tailored to eSports teams, this whole concept will fail. That is definitely true, and worries me. However, I think in your point you're forgetting that there is the ability to release players to free agency, and also there are (as far as I'm aware) variably-long contracts. That is, the contracts with players don't all last for 5 years -- many professional teams in the NBA, NFL, etc., sign very short contracts with players to see how they perform before bringing them on for longer ones. While those short contracts are controversial and have their own problems, that could be a way of solving the issue of drafting a player and getting stuck with them for years.
Overall, I think you also are looking at the extra considerations for drafting, trading, etc., as a liability. I think the strategy behind building a successful team is fascinating, and could be cool to see in eSports. It also seems to bring more advantages than disadvantages.
4.) Definitely valid. I hope the current teams don't get completely pushed out of the scene, but at the same time, it's not like Blizzard is holding these smaller teams back from going and getting the funding and then participating in the bidding for a slot. The nature of these more stable, organized sports leagues is that smaller teams will fall away -- perhaps some don't like it, but if you want the stability, organization, fanbase, and money of a larger league, it's necessary to consolidate.
5.) You're saying that eSports is in essence a global phenomenon. While that's true, I think there are two points to go against your fears in this department. First, let's look at established and famous sports organizations like Man U. I have family in Hong Kong and China and I know of kids there who have been ardent fans of Man U since they were 3. That's a
team on the other side of the world that gets loyalty from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in China ALONE. Over the years, I think organizations in this league can generate an international fanbase in the same (but probably much smaller due to the nature of the sport) way.
Second, I think it's actually fine that some regional teams will lose international fanbase. Why? Because they will gain that back 10-fold from local fans who cheer for their team simply because they are from the same place. For instance, let's look at the Lakers, or Man U, or the Patriots, and on and on. There are many who are not fans of these teams because
they live somewhere else. However, there are also many who do not have a local team and therefore follow a team not from their own region (read my point above). However, most importantly, there are thousands and thousands if not millions of potential fans in large cities who will root for a local team because they are local. It's a great way to spark
interest in people who would otherwise not watch eSports. My girlfriend, for example, won't go online to watch eSports herself. However, if she and a group of friends could go and watch eSports together at a local "arena" (or studio, whatever), that would probably get her attention. Loyal, local fanbases are what drive teams to glory (think: Chicago Cubs,
the Packers, etc).
|
On November 05 2016 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 17:41 Golden Ghost wrote:
Although I like the premiss of the whole I also see a lot of flaws you make some good points thx for taking the time to post. Blizzard is great at making games.. like "best in the world" great... and Blizzard is mediocre at everything else. they need to hand this league off to someone else. if Blizz has the balls to sign a cheque and let someone else run the league it has a shot. If Blizzard is involved in this league from top to bottom it won't go well. Kotick is shouting from the rooftops about how great his new eSports ATVI subsidiary is.. give it to him. if it dies an ugly death Blizzard takes zero blame.
Do you really think they're THAT bad? I mean, as you said above, they were the ones who made eSports what it is today in Korea, and are arguably the catalyst for eSports current success.
|
On November 06 2016 12:09 Nuclease wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 05 2016 17:41 Golden Ghost wrote:
Although I like the premiss of the whole I also see a lot of flaws you make some good points thx for taking the time to post. Blizzard is great at making games.. like "best in the world" great... and Blizzard is mediocre at everything else. they need to hand this league off to someone else. if Blizz has the balls to sign a cheque and let someone else run the league it has a shot. If Blizzard is involved in this league from top to bottom it won't go well. Kotick is shouting from the rooftops about how great his new eSports ATVI subsidiary is.. give it to him. if it dies an ugly death Blizzard takes zero blame. Do you really think they're THAT bad? I mean, as you said above, they were the ones who made eSports what it is today in Korea, and are arguably the catalyst for eSports current success.
that was sarcasm. a bunch of smart korean promoters went out all on their own totally ignoring blizzard and created Brood War esports. its comical that this LA newspaper credits Blizz with this. their 'facts' just fit in with the over all theme of the story.
Blizz is mediocre at running competitive leagues. not horrible. if they were horrific the decision to hand the league off to someone else would be easy. because Blizzard gets a few things right it makes it a hard decision to hand it off.
|
On November 06 2016 14:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 12:09 Nuclease wrote:On November 05 2016 22:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 05 2016 17:41 Golden Ghost wrote:
Although I like the premiss of the whole I also see a lot of flaws you make some good points thx for taking the time to post. Blizzard is great at making games.. like "best in the world" great... and Blizzard is mediocre at everything else. they need to hand this league off to someone else. if Blizz has the balls to sign a cheque and let someone else run the league it has a shot. If Blizzard is involved in this league from top to bottom it won't go well. Kotick is shouting from the rooftops about how great his new eSports ATVI subsidiary is.. give it to him. if it dies an ugly death Blizzard takes zero blame. Do you really think they're THAT bad? I mean, as you said above, they were the ones who made eSports what it is today in Korea, and are arguably the catalyst for eSports current success. that was sarcasm. a bunch of smart korean promoters went out all on their own totally ignoring blizzard and created Brood War esports. its comical that this LA newspaper credits Blizz with this. their 'facts' just fit in with the over all theme of the story. Blizz is mediocre at running competitive leagues. not horrible. if they were horrific the decision to hand the league off to someone else would be easy. because Blizzard gets a few things right it makes it a hard decision to hand it off.
Ah, okay, I see. I did think that slightly suspicious. To be fair, Blizzard didn't know eSports were going to blow up like they did with BW -- it was only with SC2 that they really started trying to cater to an eSports scene in any way.
Do you think that Blizzard's efforts in SC2 eSports were really that bad? For that matter, I think they've done an excellent job with the Hearthstone scene, and the Heroes scene is pretty lively considering how small the game's audience is (relative to LoL, Dota2, etc). I mean, SC2 eSports were sort of doomed from the start in SK, if you ask me -- an aging audience in a country that has largely moved from RTS games to MOBAs and FPS games. I would say, overall, Blizzard does a much better job at promoting real competition than Riot, for instance.
Riot is constantly criticized for using LCS purely as a way to expand their player base, constantly making choices that sacrifice the stability of players and teams. I'm not sure if you're a proponent of the way things are done in LCS, but I don't think that there's really a precedent for what Blizzard is doing with OW League, so it's hard to even compare.
|
On November 07 2016 02:48 Nuclease wrote:
I'm not sure if you're a proponent of the way things are done in LCS, but I don't think that there's really a precedent for what Blizzard is doing with OW League, so it's hard to even compare.
i think the skill set required to make the game of basketball is completely differrent from the skillset required to run the NBA. these two activities are so fundamentally different that ATVI elected to make a subsidiary to handle esports. This lets the developers focus on making games. i'd prefer Blizzard cut a cheque and paid someone else to run the league. The ATVI subsidiary would be one possible alternative. There might be something better out there. I don't know enough about the industry to recommend the best people to do this. i do know Blizzard can't do a top notch job.
i don't think Adam Silver could invent basketball. i don't think James Naismith had the skills to be NBA commissioner.
|
Apparently Bobby Kotick was seen with Patriots owner Robert Kraft, LA Rams owner Stan Kroenke at Blizzcon
The owner of C9, Jack, and the owner of TSM, Reggie were talking to Bobby Kotick as well.
I wonder how the traditional esports owners are going to work in this new ecosystem. Are they going to have teams "buy" a spot or is Blizzard going to give spots away etc. Lots of questions, I hope Steve & Nazgul don't get fucked over.
|
the Overwatch League is hiring!
|
really unhappy about this, but thats probably because I already love a team and this could shake up the roster.
|
I wonder if California would get more than 1 team, like 2-3, if not bids for that area would get insane
|
any idea if this is going to be a single global league, with teams from different continents competing all in the same group or separated leagues for each continent?
|
Does anyone else think that they should get a better way of spectating the game for this to become huge?
I think that FPS games are a lot more "intuitive" to watch for people that haven't played them than RTS, MOBA etc. (you wouldn't understand wtf is going on in SC2 or Dota 2 if you haven't played them), but after watching some matches at Blizzcon I can't help but feel that they need to do something about the spectating? It felt very chaotic and hard to follow.
|
On November 10 2016 21:59 Arnstein wrote:
Does anyone else think that they should get a better way of spectating the game for this to become huge?
I think that FPS games are a lot more "intuitive" to watch for people that haven't played them than RTS, MOBA etc. (you wouldn't understand wtf is going on in SC2 or Dota 2 if you haven't played them), but after watching some matches at Blizzcon I can't help but feel that they need to do something about the spectating? It felt very chaotic and hard to follow.
"Another aspect of accessibility will be making Overwatch esports broadcasts more, well, watchable. Nanzer said Blizzard has already done a lot of work on the game's spectate and broadcast features and has plans to continue tweaking and improving them as the launch of Overwatch League nears." this is in the OP's link. With the league starting in Q3 2017 Blizzard has some time to improve the watchability of the game till then.
|
This more I hear about this the more the criticism of the league seem like it may materialize. We have a developer-controlled league that seems to intend to buyout teams more or less forcibly, as they'd be relegated to irrelevance if they didn't just sell off to the monopoly. And if I understand correctly it would aim to split the talent more or less evenly across the cities. How are cities a good way to tie down teams?
Anyway I'm really worried about this. I think the Blizzcon tournament was complete shit because it broke apart and essentially made new PUGs play against each other and it gave us games of lower quality than what we'd expect from good teams that have months of experience playing together, swapping players in and out when things don't go well or a certain player underperforms.
By interfering too much in the natural process of building a good team, Blizzard is at risk of lowering the level of play, especially if the aim is to spread the talent more or less evenly across the teams (which I don't know to be the case). It seems to be a potential byproduct of the "cities" setup though.
I'm very skeptical of all this. I think that the developer should stay out except for perhaps some financial and technical help for the organizers. Teams and orgs and players should be mostly independent from the dev. I think it could be done right but it remains to be seen. I really hope that the teams especially maintain their independence and their ability to move their roster around like they do in CSGO and other games. The last thing we want is a Riot situation.
|
is the most successful league in the history of eSports the league that just ignored Blizzard and did whatever they wanted with Brood War in South Korea? is so.. Blizzard should take heed of that success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
