|
Greetings Team Liquid,
I just hit plat Zerg :D. This is my first OP here. Warning: mega giant post ahead. The first paragraph is a TLDR.
This essay is about the tension between Starcraft as a video game and Starcraft as an e-sport. I will present three arguments. First, that such a tension exists. Second, that improving the e-sports aspect of the game is inherently better for both players and for Blizzard. Third, I argue that there are specific ways of improving this aspect. I will conclude with some of my personal thoughts on the matter, but bearing in mind my limited Sc experience, I invite and encourage you to make your own conclusions.
By way of introduction, let me introduce what I mean by "game vs e-sport". By "video game aspects" I mean mechanics that allow players to improve based on their interaction with the game environment. An example in real life is swimming. You do not interact with your opponents. Instead, you focus on battling against the water. This provides challenge, and a constant feeling of "I can do better".
By way of contrast, take baseball. (I choose not to use martial arts or boxing as a counter example because it steel-mans my point). A player caught between first and second base will need to constantly interact with the opposing team's basemen, trying to out wi and out maneuver them.
From a training point of view, you get better by improving on your own. Training occurs in the gym, at a batting cage, or with the coach. You could practice while you race/play/fight, but optimal practice requires external interaction.
From an entertainment view however, people want to see action. What makes certain sports interesting is the intellectual and physical interaction between players. Watching swimming is, in my opinion, less interesting than watching basket ball, because in the later, players interact.
Back to Starcraft. Injecting is a "video game mechanic". (Incidentally, I would love a better term. If someone has a better idea after reading this post, please let me know. ) it requires a lot of memory, ability, and concentration to get good at it, but it is by no means "fun" to execute or watch. Sure, when I execute a flawless inject. It feels great, but that pales in comparison to watching my banelings roll into a big green gooey mess into unsuspecting marines. This later interaction (splitting vs banelings/ling positioning) is cool. It's fast. It's smart. That's what make e sports fun to watch and part of what what makes things like LOL such success stories.
Ok, so why is there a tension between the two? The short answer is that human beings are limited. We can only concentrate on a finite number of things in succession, and you can only actively think of something one at a time. I won't link the research here, but its easily googled: "multi tasking" is an impossibility. What we do in SC is create and execute algorithms that become chunked together. So, this means that every single action in sc2 can be reduced to either: playing against THE GAME (economy management, supply, MULES, scouting) or playing against THE OPPONENT (blink micro, drops, end game battles).
Because of this, creating new functions for Starcraft as a game causes less focus on Starcraft as an e sport. The more time spent building stuff, the less time spent developing strategies and tactics. Generally, economy is "game" oriented and strategy is "e sports" oriented. That's a sweeping statement, and there are some exceptions.
The point is, we can only do so much.
Great, so what? I will spend less time on this argument because it is a personal opinion i have. if you dont agree already, i likely cannot convince you. Well, Starcraft is awesome because of its community, it's meta game, and of course, the amount of streaming, casting, tournament playing and laddering that occur. Players benefit more from the e sports centric Starcraft because more people get exposed, more people play, and the challenges you face are against smart people, rather than against your own memory.
Improvements in this area are good for Blizzard as well, because obviously more entertainment means more players means more dollars means more investment, means a better game..... Which means more entertainment. "Recursion" is beautiful. Google it. You will be happy.
Tangent done. So far we have seen that (if I am right):
1. Game aspects involve a player improving against him or herself
2. E sports aspects involve a player improving against another player.
3. The two are weighted: making one more central tends to side step the other.
In addition to these, I think e sports parts of sc are more important then individual aspects, both for players and Blizzard.
Ok, so what do we do? I am not suggesting we remove things like injects. Injects, chrono and MULEs are very interesting dynamics. Generally, I am not saying that what I am calling "game" aspects ought to be removed. Actually, they are absolutely necessary to make this particular game good, since it is a real time strategy and ECON game.
What I am saying is that more time spent of the field and less time spent on the base is more awesome on every single way. How do we promote that?
1. Make economy management easier. I have no idea how. Timers, reminders... I really do not know.
2. Make engaments more interesting. Take a look at the following spells: fungal, lift (Phoenix ability), snipe, storm to a degree, force field, All of these, once executed, are very difficult to do anything about because they stop opponent interaction. I think more abilities like, siege mode, blinding cloud, seeker missile should be instant imaged because the opponent can actually do something about it. Fungal, the epitome of "I'm stuck, damn it" is the most boring thing on the planet.
3. ???. I really have not thought this far. All this enormous post is, is simply a point of view I wanted to express and get your feed back on. It is you who will hopefully generate ideas based on it. As for myself, I am not experienced enough in order to think on the most practical/ balanced level.
If you got anything out of this, I hope you learned that the e sports aspects of Starcraft are what make it thrive and grow. Further, I hope you recognize that Blizzard can and should take a look at trying to focus on these things.
By the way, you have done an awesome job so far with things like the observer ui, skins, the viper (I can't micro it at all but I LOvE the concept.), the oracle etc.
Thanks for your time. I know there are some controversial things in here, so I look forward to debating them and hearing from you. I'm very open to suggestions, and would love to know if I have this all backwards.
Yours,
Ninjury
|
Starcraft is impressive and entertaining to me because of mechanics. Sure, like any one, I prefer seeing MKP perfectly split against banelings more than I like seeing him not get supply blocked or call down MULEs. But I respect MKP and admire him as a player based on his micro and his macro, not just one.
|
The human mind isn't impressive because it can perform actions in succession, it's impressive for it's ability to strategize and recognize patterns. Most of Starcraft's actions (not all, just most) are muscle-memory reflexes. It's a type of skill for sure, but it's not one that I particularly admire.
I agree with you, but this discussion has been had many times. You're on a Starcraft board, this game is more slanted towards mechanics on the spectrum than almost every other competitive videogame, and the community understandably feels the same.
We'll have to hope for an AoEII remake if we want an RTS that's strategically dominated. Most of the best players on that game were old dudes who spent as much time thinking and doing math on the game as actually playing it, it was awesome.
|
Oh don't get me wrong, mechanics are an awesome skill set. Very admirable. Worthy of respect. Just not as fun. Imagine agame only based on mechanics. = Boredom, for an rts. Imagine a game based purely on unit control. Fun, but shallow. Both are necessary, I only think that the interactive parts are more important. Thanks for the feedback!
|
I agree with most of your post, but to grow SC2 into an eSports, developers must factor in attention span of the spectator. The reason why DotA and LoL are gaining a following is due to two reasons:
1. They understand the game, beat the other team using an array of techniques/abilities/strategies
2. Action can happen AT ANY TIME, sure a kill in the first five minutes is very rare, but it can happen
Almost all popular sports have the same two themes, action can happen at any moment, and they happen under 10 min. Even in football, aka lolsoccer, within the first five minutes there is at least always 1 near miss/blocked/controversial decision at the goal post.
The decision to limit openings under 8 minutes is a suicidal move in my opinion, the oldest surviving intellectual sport, chess, has THOUSANDS of openings (1327 named openings and variants).
The audience must be kept at the edge of their seats. And watching buildings build for the first 10 minutes, while casters talk about their day gets tiring eventually.
Thus I have come to the conclusion that Blizzard must abandon its "balanced win ratio" doctrine and let people figure out their own meta.
|
If you compare SC2 to other traditional sports (soccer, baseketball, baseball, tennis, golf, hockey, football) is the fact that sports are also spectator friendly.
Most sports are very simple and action is in ONE location at a time. For example, soccer and basketball, you focus on the ball. Hockey, you focus on the puck. Of course, there are team strategies and formations. But the camera is always focus on one area of the game, where the ball is. This makes it very easy for any type of spectator from young to old, any gender to view the game and understand what's going on. Imagine a soccer game with two balls, it is very hard for spectator to follow.
There are many things happening in SC2. Mining, expanding, buildings, research, units moving and fighting. Even some of the commentators will miss the key action in a camera. I play RTS, I play SC1. So I know what's going on. Ask someone who never play RTS (or video games) and they will have no clue what's going on. In short, SC2 is not a spectator friendly game.
When I was playing in paintball, we had the same discussion about making the paintball sport to become more popular. The limit is that it is hard for ordinary people to go and see a game and understand what's going on. If you've been to a speedball tourney, you will know. Multiple actions are happening all at once general public have no idea what's going on.
I am not to say eSport will not grow. In fact, it is getting very popular and I am psych about how big industry is becoming. But to grow big like sport, i doubt that will happen not because there's no action. It is the opposite...to much action and too complicate for general public to pick up.
|
On February 22 2013 15:02 BigRedDog wrote:
If you compare SC2 to other traditional sports (soccer, baseketball, baseball, tennis, golf, hockey, football) is the fact that sports are also spectator friendly.
Most sports are very simple and action is in ONE location at a time. For example, soccer and basketball, you focus on the ball. Hockey, you focus on the puck. Of course, there are team strategies and formations. But the camera is always focus on one area of the game, where the ball is. This makes it very easy for any type of spectator from young to old, any gender to view the game and understand what's going on. Imagine a soccer game with two balls, it is very hard for spectator to follow.
There are many things happening in SC2. Mining, expanding, buildings, research, units moving and fighting. Even some of the commentators will miss the key action in a camera. I play RTS, I play SC1. So I know what's going on. Ask someone who never play RTS (or video games) and they will have no clue what's going on. In short, SC2 is not a spectator friendly game.
When I was playing in paintball, we had the same discussion about making the paintball sport to become more popular. The limit is that it is hard for ordinary people to go and see a game and understand what's going on. If you've been to a speedball tourney, you will know. Multiple actions are happening all at once general public have no idea what's going on.
I am not to say eSport will not grow. In fact, it is getting very popular and I am psych about how big industry is becoming. But to grow big like sport, i doubt that will happen not because there's no action. It is the opposite...to much action and too complicate for general public to pick up.
You forget that while the above is true, there is ONE location/thing that spectators can focus on, units that kill stuff. The more often this happens, units killing stuff, the more exciting it is.
And quite frankly, the last four years have not been good to Terran players every time they innovate with a new unit composition for timing push/all-in it has been nerfed. Just look at the liquipedia. Terrans literally have only two openings, medivac/marine w/ stim drop or hellion runby/drop.
|
On February 22 2013 13:12 iEchoic wrote:
The human mind isn't impressive because it can perform actions in succession, it's impressive for it's ability to strategize and recognize patterns. Most of Starcraft's actions (not all, just most) are muscle-memory reflexes. It's a type of skill for sure, but it's not one that I particularly admire.
I agree with you, but this discussion has been had many times. You're on a Starcraft board, this game is more slanted towards mechanics on the spectrum than almost every other competitive videogame, and the community understandably feels the same.
We'll have to hope for an AoEII remake if we want an RTS that's strategically dominated. Most of the best players on that game were old dudes who spent as much time thinking and doing math on the game as actually playing it, it was awesome.
AOE2 was dominated by a very limited set of Feudal Rush ('flush') strategies, and most of the races weren't even viable despite being a lot more similar than Starcraft's races.
|
On February 22 2013 16:21 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 13:12 iEchoic wrote:
The human mind isn't impressive because it can perform actions in succession, it's impressive for it's ability to strategize and recognize patterns. Most of Starcraft's actions (not all, just most) are muscle-memory reflexes. It's a type of skill for sure, but it's not one that I particularly admire.
I agree with you, but this discussion has been had many times. You're on a Starcraft board, this game is more slanted towards mechanics on the spectrum than almost every other competitive videogame, and the community understandably feels the same.
We'll have to hope for an AoEII remake if we want an RTS that's strategically dominated. Most of the best players on that game were old dudes who spent as much time thinking and doing math on the game as actually playing it, it was awesome. AOE2 was dominated by a very limited set of Feudal Rush ('flush') strategies, and most of the races weren't even viable despite being a lot more similar than Starcraft's races.
The game did have flaws (though I disagree about being 'dominated' by flush strategies). It also had fantastic qualities, such as having real macro that involved strategical decision making. Macro on SC2 is a mechanical exercise, and in comparison, a much easier one.
It's just an example of a game that's farther on the strategy continuum and less on the mechanics continuum than SC2. I'd like to see more games in that direction. R.U.S.E. was poorly executed in many ways, but I really liked the concept behind it - it would serve as another example if it wasn't significantly flawed.
|
|
|
Reducing the complexcity of the econmics in the game is a bad idea. Just because a game like LoL has more constant players fights going teo to teo doesn't mean that startcraft should try and coppy that pace of game, because RTS will never have that kinda of interaction so insted RTS should focus on its comparitve advatage which in the case of starcraft is, buildings and controlling many units at the same time.
I think the way to make this game more fun to both play, and to watch is to increase the power of multi tasking. This means that players who can play faster will win more and use their skills to create fights (interactions) all over the map all game, imporving what you called the e sports side of the game. So we will be watching pro games with allot of action but in noob games people will work on their mechanices and such (as tbey do now), the video game aspect.
Now I dont think that high AMP should be buffed by just making the game harder to controll broodwar style. This just creats a steep learning curve which isn't good. It should be done through inceasing the impcat of micro in battles, and more so in small fights. this will encorage high AMP players to utilise their skill by creating many small engaments across the map. That is what fun starcraft looks like and thats what creates complex play and makes the game allot more fun.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On February 22 2013 17:24 Pigzyf5 wrote:
Reducing the complexcity of the econmics in the game is a bad idea. Just because a game like LoL has more constant players fights going teo to teo doesn't mean that startcraft should try and coppy that pace of game, because RTS will never have that kinda of interaction so insted RTS should focus on its comparitve advatage which in the case of starcraft is, buildings and controlling many units at the same time.
I think the way to make this game more fun to both play, and to watch is to increase the power of multi tasking. This means that players who can play faster will win more and use their skills to create fights (interactions) all over the map all game, imporving what you called the e sports side of the game. So we will be watching pro games with allot of action but in noob games people will work on their mechanices and such (as tbey do now), the video game aspect.
Now I dont think that high AMP should be buffed by just making the game harder to controll broodwar style. This just creats a steep learning curve which isn't good. It should be done through inceasing the impcat of micro in battles, and more so in small fights. this will encorage high AMP players to utilise their skill by creating many small engaments across the map. That is what fun starcraft looks like and thats what creates complex play and makes the game allot more fun.
With injects and warp gate it’s very hard to have many small engagements. In SC2 zerg and protoss can max up in 30 seconds (if they have enough resources, gates and larva). In BW, LoL, Dota there is constant stream of units and because of that there are many small engagements.
Imho without injects, warp gates, mules SC2 would have been more fun to watch.
|
On February 22 2013 16:21 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 13:12 iEchoic wrote:
The human mind isn't impressive because it can perform actions in succession, it's impressive for it's ability to strategize and recognize patterns. Most of Starcraft's actions (not all, just most) are muscle-memory reflexes. It's a type of skill for sure, but it's not one that I particularly admire.
I agree with you, but this discussion has been had many times. You're on a Starcraft board, this game is more slanted towards mechanics on the spectrum than almost every other competitive videogame, and the community understandably feels the same.
We'll have to hope for an AoEII remake if we want an RTS that's strategically dominated. Most of the best players on that game were old dudes who spent as much time thinking and doing math on the game as actually playing it, it was awesome. AOE2 was dominated by a very limited set of Feudal Rush ('flush') strategies, and most of the races weren't even viable despite being a lot more similar than Starcraft's races.
Tbh while I agree with you there, it is still imo true that it would be nice to have a more strategic game: where pretty much blindly following a BO should be an autoloss.
|
If you compare WC3 and SC2, then wc3 is more about micro. But to what makes sc2 fun to me is the multitasking. Macro and micro. While the difference between players in macro is more subtle, in that it's harder for spectators to see, it still has a major, entertaining impact on the game.
|
On February 22 2013 17:41 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 17:24 Pigzyf5 wrote:
Reducing the complexcity of the econmics in the game is a bad idea. Just because a game like LoL has more constant players fights going teo to teo doesn't mean that startcraft should try and coppy that pace of game, because RTS will never have that kinda of interaction so insted RTS should focus on its comparitve advatage which in the case of starcraft is, buildings and controlling many units at the same time.
I think the way to make this game more fun to both play, and to watch is to increase the power of multi tasking. This means that players who can play faster will win more and use their skills to create fights (interactions) all over the map all game, imporving what you called the e sports side of the game. So we will be watching pro games with allot of action but in noob games people will work on their mechanices and such (as tbey do now), the video game aspect.
Now I dont think that high AMP should be buffed by just making the game harder to controll broodwar style. This just creats a steep learning curve which isn't good. It should be done through inceasing the impcat of micro in battles, and more so in small fights. this will encorage high AMP players to utilise their skill by creating many small engaments across the map. That is what fun starcraft looks like and thats what creates complex play and makes the game allot more fun. With injects and warp gate it’s very hard to have many small engagements. In SC2 zerg and protoss can max up in 30 seconds ( if they have enough resources, gates and larva). In BW, LoL, Dota there is constant stream of units and because of that there are many small engagements. Imho without injects, warp gates, mules SC2 would have been more fun to watch.
This is the core problem. Injects and warpgates (and low productiontime very costefficient bio units combined with mules) all wouldn't be so much of a problem. Sure you can take out money from builds by increasing the invest-costs to get the same production. But once I have paid the 50% more resources that it costs to get a similar production with hatcheries, as I have with hatchery+queen I can still do the same. And this would happen because the only way to spend the income is to build enough production.
The core problem is the income. You get something like ~2000/600 per minute from three bases. Once your production is up, this means you could produce roughly 30-60 supply worth of basic units per minute - independed of the race. The difference is merely the investment cost for the races (which actually don't differ so much, as can be seen by ingame investment stats).
This is why we see 100zerglings, 15marines (you get 2.4 cycles of those per minute!) on the production tab and why toplevel Protoss players build 10+ warpgates to begin with.
I believe Barrin can put this more eloquently, but here is why I believe this is bad for the game:
a) If you move out with a small army, you can get severely punished by freshly produced troops! Instead of steadily producing some units and working with them, the benefit of a standing army is very small. Why invest into something that my opponent can counter without being extra prepared?
b) The income per base is so high that people don't need to keep expanding. Instead of spreading themselves thin - something that gives an opponent opportunities to use his army/armies - players can sit behind walls, defenses and in areas where reinforcing is hardly an issue.
|
It seems like a lot of people forget one thing: Players are / should be admired, because they do things other people can't do. If all these mules and injects are taken away, the game would lose a lot of "magic" for the spectator. The most impressive thing in the game are the mechanics, while strategy spices up everything.
I think if people want to watch games without (or very low mechanical needs) that value decision making and strategy very high Dota is the correct choice. (Strategy doesn't play a bigger aspect than in SC2 though, people tend to overvalue picks a lot.)
It actually boils down to:
Starcraft II: a) Mechanics b) Strategy c) Decision making
Dota 2: a) Decision making b) Strategy c) Mechanics
That said, a more simple eco management in SC2 would make the biggest "magical" factor in Starcraft crumble, which is surely not good for it as an esports.
|
mechanics is what makes it a competitive game. Strategy can easily be copied.
|
Tell me this is not impressive: Korean Gamers: APM Demonstration (YouTube) - with Nada and Moon.
I think tournaments are not showing this stuff (mechanics) enough. I find first-person streams more interesting (especially the ones where the player puts their webcam onto their keyboard - LiquidHero does this from time to time) than tournaments. You can see the skill difference in great effect when Jaedong is zipping from one part of the map to another, macroing and then zooming back to the battle, and defending a drop at his 4th base.
I don't think we should be comparing SC2 to soccer or basketball. I think it should be more like Formula 1 (2nd most watched sport in the world). The most exciting spectating for me is the on-board camera seeing a driver go flat out through a part like Eau Rouge at Spa (Belgian GP). That shows the difference between a pro and an amateur/casual player.
We need more of that. Seeing a bunch of digital units moving back and forth on the screen from the in-game spectators perspective doesn't show the sheer skill of these players.
|
On February 23 2013 02:10 Squiggles wrote:Tell me this is not impressive: Korean Gamers: APM Demonstration (YouTube) - with Nada and Moon. I think tournaments are not showing this stuff (mechanics) enough. I find first-person streams more interesting (especially the ones where the player puts their webcam onto their keyboard - LiquidHero does this from time to time) than tournaments. You can see the skill difference in great effect when Jaedong is zipping from one part of the map to another, macroing and then zooming back to the battle, and defending a drop at his 4th base. I don't think we should be comparing SC2 to soccer or basketball. I think it should be more like Formula 1 (2nd most watched sport in the world). The most exciting spectating for me is the on-board camera seeing a driver go flat out through a part like Eau Rouge at Spa (Belgian GP). That shows the difference between a pro and an amateur/casual player. We need more of that. Seeing a bunch of digital units moving back and forth on the screen from the in-game spectators perspective doesn't show the sheer skill of these players.
I do like your idea. Keyboard+mouse cam. haha.
But no, that'll be sick. Watching pros do 600APM.
|
That's true. Again, I'm not saying mechanics is unimportant. On the contrary, it's very necessary. The heart of what I am saying is that ON THEIR OWN pure mechanics is boring. Imagine if Jaedong was doing the exact same thing, but with a blank screen.... Watching his hands would be sorta meh, right? The thing that is fun to watch is the digital units moving, BECAUSE OF the players mechanics. Therefore, mechanics should be applied more to engagements, I.e, spells and tactics should require an opponent response to defeat, but that response must be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
