|
On April 16 2011 23:56 Gak2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 21:13 haflo wrote:
Mechanics were more than a skill gap.
okay i must say thats the one line that drove me to write this post instead of working on my article. bad mechanics are bad thingfor a game or a spot .it can NEVER be a good thing , and if you think it is , think why . artificial/technical obsticals are exactly that , bugs . yes it can be beautifull to see a player select each unit and tell it to move to a specific position because if you just tell everyone to move they will walk in circles. but its simply better players waste their time on stratagic decision , microing each spellcaster or macroing more bases. Huge disagreement here... I've asked people before to name a competitive sport where strategy is more important than technical skill. (and don't say chess. Why? because that game is pure strategy. Sports should have both technical skill and strategy). You'll see that... if there are any, there are very few. This is because a sport isn't impressive if some guy can just learn strategy and win a lot of his games... he needs to spend hours refining technique in order for people to stand in awe of the person's capabilities. I feel the same way about starcraft.
You realize how much time the pros spend at learning the mechanics and strategy/metagame of the game? Beeing good at macro/strategy is extremely technical.
As a former pretty good ice hockey player, i know that your "micro" skill, such as sick stick move, is NOTHING compared to if you know where to be and where to go (similar to the strategy and macro of sc2.)
|
I think that in general the units that replaced units from BW haven't turned out to be as interesting.
Baneling / Corruptor instead of Lurker / Scourge. Infestor instead of Defiler.
Colossus vs Reaver, Hellion vs Vultures, Ravens vs Science Vessel.
Bah, I hope they do some radical changes for HotS
|
After reading the post, I just want to offer a few counter points to the OP. I think it was a well written post but as an avid follower of brood war, I feel like there's some rose tinted glasses syndrome going on here.
Some of your points about space control are decent, but many of the assertions made, specifically the one about the sentry I really dont agree with. As a diamond level zerg player, I can attest to how irritating it is, but you asserted that there is no response by the other player to the sentry. Perhaps once the forcefields are already down there is little one can do against them, but when I'm attacking a protoss or trying to defend my natural or something, I am EXTREMELY careful to pick where I engage, assuming he's going to try and use the most opportune forcefields. As is becoming more and more coming in high level play, players are using the tunneling claws upgrade to counter force fields as well. (watch Idra for example)
You also bring up how in ZvT in broodwar, a zerg player could lose his entire army without doing any damage to the terran if he mismicroed or had poor unit control or positioning. How is this not the case in ZvT now? I've sent so many 200/200 roach/baneling/muta/ling into the meat grinder that is the terran tank/marine setup and lost everything while terran suffered minimal losses.
I've destroyed entire clusters of marines with 5 burrowed banelings. I've exerted map control on a terran player with mutalisks or fast burrow or ling run-bys.
EDIT: I'm actually leaving for home right now, but I'll add more to this later. Great discussion though.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 16 2011 22:25 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 21:04 Faze. wrote:On April 16 2011 20:49 3xiLe wrote:On April 16 2011 20:43 Faze. wrote:On April 16 2011 20:29 YyapSsap wrote:
I just dont buy the whole "SC2 some time" arguments either. If it was a completely new game, it might makes sense but it was built upon a foundation called SC:BW. Sequels normally take what was great with the original and add something more to deliver an even greater enjoyable experience.
Sadly, some of the things that made BW so epic and last this long compared to say War3 and any other RTS games combined together is missing completely in SC2. If such formulae worked for the first game, why not use it as the basis of the second?
Its quite laughable at how they were so fixated on so many gimmicky things (remember those preview clips of their units before the game was released?) "Yay our reapers can jump up and down cliffs!?!" to "Look at our colossus micro, going back and forth high ground to low ground while dealing damaghe to the mass zerglings..."
I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit". Alright, i'll answer one more before bed >.> Once you've battled and beaten the UI, the game branches off in many directions afterwords, which uses the shitty UI as a foundation for great strategies and abuses the fact, making it very interesting. I mean, these our how strategies developed, sure they werent created to soley abuse the fact, but i think that sure would have had an inspiration for some of the strategies, and for some of the game style (passive, agressive) etc people have and BW Z production was fine once you got used to it. it actually became easier in some circumstances. I understand your point. But I'm sure you're aware that in the video game industry nowaday, if the player has to struggle with the UI or the controls, it's considered a very, very important flaw. It became a flaw after the years because people realized that it's generally more fun to play the game than to be challenged by the UI. BW got thru it mainly because there was no competition. I really, REALLY agree with this point. Yes, SC2 is being compared to BW. HOWEVER, it is also heavily compared to every other RTS in the market which SC2 is competing with. There are quite a few casual gamers and RTS enthusiasts that initially find SC2 to be unappealing simply because it shared too much with BW. To them, they expected SC2 to be more of an "evolution" that would have many of the "improvements" that a lot of other RTS games had innovated, such as the Generals Powers initially from C&C Generals, the Strategic Zoom from Supreme Commander, and the cover system from Company of Heroes. Of course, SC2 needs none of these things to be a great game, but it's still quite annoying to browse other gaming websites only to find ignorant people who don't like SC2 because marines can't take cover and air strikes and paradrops can't be called from the side of the screen. I used to browse C&C forums quite frequently before TL, and it was irritating to see posts criticizing SC2 for being the exact same as BW. Heck, even Kotaku decided to troll us with an article saying that SC2 was a disappointment because it was too similar to BW. I assume that people expected BW and SC2 to be as different as WC2 and WC3, yet were disappointed that there weren't enough new gimmicks like Heroes and neutral Creeps. Consequently, the UI of SC2 is being compared with every RTS in the market in addition to BW. As much as we would like limited unit selection, no MBS, and a different, slightly more difficult pathfinding AI, the mainstream gaming media may not be review such features as kindly as we TLers do. Although BW UI would add mechanical difficulty benefiting skill and adding better dynamics for spectators, it is still a cumbersome and in many ways an inferior interface compared to the interfaces of other highly-rated RTS games. In any other game, MBS, auto-mining, and unlimited unit selection would be a blessing and would be considered "better" UI. Why struggle with a 12 unit selection limit in BW when you can be controlling a literally unlimited number of units in C&C? Why baby-sit production facilities when you can auto-queue in the Age of Mythology expansion pack? Of course, too much help from the UI decreases skill gaps too much and harms the e-sports aspect of the game, yet for many of the uninitiated, playing SC2 is not synonymous with being competitive or watching the pro-scene. Present the completely inexperienced casual gamer with the BW and SC2 UIs, and they will most definitely prefer playing with the SC2 UI simply because it is easier, which is exactly what Blizzard intended. Of course, this puts Blizzard in a really awkward situation. On one hand, they need to sell the game to thousands, perhaps millions of casual gamers who couldn't care less about the e-sports scene and are perfectly happy weekend warriors sitting from Bronze to Plat or even Diamond league. On the other hand, Blizzard needs to create the dynamics and x-factor that made the BW scene such a treat to watch and follow. This in itself is a huge paradox that is difficult to address. As a result, I don't think the discussion should focus on overall mechanical difficulty. MBS, ball pathfinding, and unlimited unit selection are here to stay. Blizzard tried to please both casuals and BW fans without alienating too much of both groups, and they had arguably succeeded with minimal casualties. Instead, I think the discussion should focus on units and the dynamics and interactions that would make them interesting to watch and use despite the changes to the UI. Balance patches may be able to discourage counters 1a ball tactics and create more entertaining dynamics from underused units. New maps might force more macro-based, BW-esque play by punishing less mobile 1a ball armies and encouraging smaller engagements and harassment. However, I think the main solution to the most fundamental spectator issues will come from whatever new units Blizzard will have in their expansion packs. Zerg dynamics can easily change with units that easily replace the Lurker, Defiler, and Scourge in function and watchability. Adding some more micro-intensive alternatives to the Colossus would easily help Protoss matchups. As I said before, creating some powerful yet incredibly difficult-to-use units and spells might be able to aid higher level players without imbalancing the lower levels. Perhaps it would also help to create some more position-dependent, map-control units similar to the Siege Tank. If Brood War, Lord of Destruction, The Frozen Throne, or even the WoW expansion packs are of any indication, then I think Blizzard will have a satisfying answer to our pleas in HotS or maybe even LotV. Until then, we can only hope that balance patches, new maps, and shifts in the metagame can answer our problems.
This guy is right. Blizzard has done a great work considering they had to sell a lot of copies, and keep the Starcraft feel and play alive.
|
On April 16 2011 19:32 gongryong wrote:Wait a minute! Where did that come from! Im sorry I havent been following their argument (whoever are invilved) but why was the second quote warned and the first one even allowed to say such utter shame of words! What the hell is wrong with these people. We are talking about SC here. If you cant keep it at least civil please leave or keep quiet. SHAME! SHAME! Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:29 Falcor wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. lol User was warned for this post
it was a sarcastic lol...was going to put and people wonder why everyone hates americans...but i thought i would get a warning for that...i guess i shoulda anyways
|
Very good read. That Savior vs iloveoov video really shows what I think a battle should be like: drawn out long enough for superior tactics and micro to shine. SC2 battles where 100 supply can be lost in 5 seconds just feels anticlimactic. I think it also causes both sides to avoid engaging, because they know if they don't have an advantage in that one engagement, they lose the whole game. As a result a lot of games are basically two balls of units dancing around each other looking for an opportune moment to engage.
What was really clear to me, was the ability of zerg to control space on the ground with the lurker. I've heard it said on these forums before, but that game really shows it. I think the argument that the role of the lurker overlaps that of the baneling is only true from the perspective that they are both effective against groups of small light units. However, it really ignores the role in controlling space, which is what give a game its large scale feel.
|
On April 17 2011 00:04 eot wrote:
I think that in general the units that replaced units from BW haven't turned out to be as interesting.
Baneling / Corruptor instead of Lurker / Scourge. Infestor instead of Defiler.
Colossus vs Reaver, Hellion vs Vultures, Ravens vs Science Vessel.
Bah, I hope they do some radical changes for HotS
I think there's still a bit of metagame development to go yet. And Burrowed Banelings are always amazing. Remember BitByBit v Moon in the GSL? 20+ Marines walking in a minefield, BOOM, and not a single Marine got hit? That was amazing to watch for so many reasons. Then then there's the Seeker Missile, which I'm confident will find a use eventually. Maybe as a mineral line harass where you'd have to pull the worker being chased away from the other, Irradiate style, and if you don't manage, the crowd gets to see a mineral line get vaporized.
|
Interesting thread with some great discussion. Maybe here are some things that people might like:
Fungal growth -> ensnare-like slow rather than stun. If you have an un-ensnared portion of your army, you can push forward while the fungal'd units slowly make their way to the back. Should still "silence" blink.
Give zerg some better early game scouting v. T. Make it so that Terran actually has to be clever to deny scouting.
Forcefields -> not unit-tight at certain radially symmetric angles. Good for funneling units and covering flanks, a little bit more skill/planning required for hard-walling or trapping units.
Colossus -> Shoots outwards instead of in a sweeping arc, like a hellion. Point aoe might work too (something with comparable splash to archon from BW). Potential splash is increased for some nice worker/angle shots if you can set it up perfectly, but the splash is now avoidable through good unit positioning... Arcs will actually help you rather than hurt you.
Buff Stim to 2x aspd. Nerf Concussive shell to be a counter-based slow... 2 counters required to slow to current speed. Additional counters slow even further. Like Devourer's acid spores. I think this will lead to some nailbiting early game encounters on how to distribute the slow between opposing units. Every hit the marauder lands could be gamechanging.
Make Blink the same tech-tier as concussive shells +- 2 minutes. I want to see how greedy a P can get and still manage to hold by getting the upgrade just in time to disjoint a critical marauder hit that makes all the difference between holding or not. Could create viable fast-tech defense to 4-gate.
Motherships are stupid.
|
I'm sorry but this not being a blog post is ridiculous. I understand you're very passionate about this topic, but for that very reason you should take a moment to consider how the thread comes off. Especially when you have it in the main SC2 forum. Also while the opinions of individual members of the site are not representative of the staff as a whole, that takes on a new dimension when that opinion is from recognized moderator. So I'm pretty sure it would be better for everyone involved if this was moved to blogs.
DISCLAIMER: I don't want this to turn into some BW vs SC2 or mechanics vs spamfest hatefest. I know it looks that way but read between the lines for 2 seconds before you respond. Anyone who responds with an idiotic flame, dumb nerf, or game design suggestion gets a 1 week minimum. This is a discussion and analysis of the game we all enjoy.
Also I believe, valid or not, there's conflict of interest issues with you being the one moderating this thread. At minimum none of this sits very well with me.
|
On April 17 2011 00:22 Gummy wrote:
Interesting thread with some great discussion. Maybe here are some things that people might like:
Fungal growth -> ensnare-like slow rather than stun. If you have an un-ensnared portion of your army, you can push forward while the fungal'd units slowly make their way to the back. Should still "silence" blink.
Give zerg some better early game scouting v. T. Make it so that Terran actually has to be clever to deny scouting.
Forcefields -> not unit-tight at certain radially symmetric angles. Good for funneling units and covering flanks, a little bit more skill/planning required for hard-walling or trapping units.
Colossus -> Shoots outwards instead of in a sweeping arc, like a hellion. Point aoe might work too (something with comparable splash to archon from BW). Potential splash is increased for some nice worker/angle shots if you can set it up perfectly, but the splash is now avoidable through good unit positioning... Arcs will actually help you rather than hurt you.
Buff Stim to 2x aspd. Nerf Concussive shell to be a counter-based slow... 2 counters required to slow to current speed. Additional counters slow even further. Like Devourer's acid spores. I think this will lead to some nailbiting early game encounters on how to distribute the slow between opposing units. Every hit the marauder lands could be gamechanging.
Make Blink the same tech-tier as concussive shells +- 2 minutes. I want to see how greedy a P can get and still manage to hold by getting the upgrade just in time to disjoint a critical marauder hit that makes all the difference between holding or not. Could create viable fast-tech defense to 4-gate.
Motherships are stupid.
DISCLAIMER: I don't want this to turn into some BW vs SC2 or mechanics vs spamfest hatefest. I know it looks that way but read between the lines for 2 seconds before you respond. Anyone who responds with an idiotic flame, dumb nerf, or game design suggestion gets a 1 week minimum. This is a discussion and analysis of the game we all enjoy.
read the op dude.
|
On April 17 2011 00:21 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2011 00:04 eot wrote:
I think that in general the units that replaced units from BW haven't turned out to be as interesting.
Baneling / Corruptor instead of Lurker / Scourge. Infestor instead of Defiler.
Colossus vs Reaver, Hellion vs Vultures, Ravens vs Science Vessel.
Bah, I hope they do some radical changes for HotS I think there's still a bit of metagame development to go yet. And Burrowed Banelings are always amazing. Remember BitByBit v Moon in the GSL? 20+ Marines walking in a minefield, BOOM, and not a single Marine got hit? That was amazing to watch for so many reasons. Then then there's the Seeker Missile, which I'm confident will find a use eventually. Maybe as a mineral line harass where you'd have to pull the worker being chased away from the other, Irradiate style, and if you don't manage, the crowd gets to see a mineral line get vaporized.
Banelings might be "amazing" to watch as a spectator but as a player i can tell you baneling bombs suck compared to lurkers. Banelings either kill their whole army...or do shit all. And it usually comes down to if they scan for them or not.
A lurker no matter what would always delay terran and for the most part always did dmg unless you got severely out microd
|
As far as "no set up time other than the Siege Tank"...
Should you require the Viking to fight ground forces a "set up time on par with the lurker" occurs as it converts from an air unit to a ground unit.
|
On April 16 2011 10:18 Micket wrote:
Starcraft 2 has the problem of really boring units. Think about it, every race has a lot of repetitive units that have differing uses in the game but actually all do similar things. Marines/marauders, stalker/immortal, roach/hydra. In bw, there were 0 units that were similar to each other. In sc2, it seems as if they dumbed down the design of each race so badly that every race has a bog standard unit that shoots some projectile that counters something.
I think the roach, immortal, corrupter, hellion, Viking, are all examples of blizzard making a unit to fit a role.
When they designed the immortal, they were thinking "armoured unit which counters armored unit."
Now think of the defiler. I doubt the person inventing the defiler was thinking "I want to make a unit to counter the marine and all other ranged units," they were thinking "do you know what's cool? PLAGUEEEE! DARK SWARM!!'
When they made the vulture, they didn't think "something to counter zealots," they were thinking "fastest unit in the game which costs 75 minerals and can lay down mini nukes which can destroy the opponents army in seconds."
With the hellion, you can tell it was a "unit to counter light units".
It's almost as if blizzard tried too hard at making the game balanced because everyone knew that designing something that was as overpowered as the vulture, reaver, lurker, defiler, would be hard to balance.
I agree 100% with this.
Sc2 focuses too much on unit counters and army compositions (think colossus/voidray/stalker) and not much on mechanics and micro. The closest thing sc2 has to "a gamebreaking micro moment" in the game would be great forcefields/fungal/emp but in reality it's just F-click on the opponents army, which doesn't really give the "oh wow did he really just pull that off?" feeling that you had in BW.
|
thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. A lot of thought went into it.
|
First off, loved the right up...
In my opinion, being only a diamond player with no real mechanics to speak of, love the direction of SC2... If you haven't noticed the spectators of BW were few and far between.. Which isn't to say they didn't exsist but think for just a second... Could you imagine watching BW and not really knowing whats going on... I have found that it is a lot easier to watch SC2 as a Starcraft noob then BW because I was one of those noobs. I remember being a kid and I played BW and thought it was just grand... I grew up and was thought I wonder what happend to that game. I started looking into it and I found TL.net... I watched a couple games and like a noob was like ok... that army beat that army and it was daunting and yes it is great for good players who new the game...
I then seen sc2 beta games and started watching and agian maybe its just my primitive mind but I remember thinking oh ok I get this... That is just from a noob spectator point of few of course but look at the blow up... look how many fans there are now compared to then... Maybe its just because its prettier but I think is because it can be easier to follow for some bronze guy who just likes to play a game from time to time... On a high level point of view of course BW is better because the skill gap is quite bigger, I mean WAAY bigger.... In SC2 upsets are a possibility! TSL was awesome to watch Koreans fall because they relied on many mechanics which of course slightly delayed because of latency but with superior, although limited, strategies win the game...
I think that for this game to be more difficult they need to add many more units... don't get me wrong don't over do it but with more units there would be a world of choices to make and players would be more punished for trying to build/upgrade everything... I do see the hardships in balancing such a feat but if you increase the amount of strategy in the game instead of focusing on pure mechanics then we would have ourselves a spectator sport...
|
On April 17 2011 00:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Should you require the Viking to fight ground forces a "set up time on par with the lurker" occurs as it converts from an air unit to a ground unit.
Because that happens alot...other then in desperate situations
|
Great post, I had never thought about most of this.
It would be nice to see the higher tier units and special tier 1, like the marauder, require more effort on the part of the player.
Marauder's slow should perhaps be casted in some way instead of automatic. Abilities that have automatic effect should mostly be removed or altered like the PDD or auto turret and active more situational abilities, like the seeker missile improved to be useful. In fact, I would switch seeker missile with PDD just to make the game more interesting.
FF is useful but it does need changed so its not so fire and forget. Others have suggested making them not perfectly blocking which might be neat.
The colossus should have a different attack other than automatic pew pew all over the place. Perhaps directional like the hellion or you have to "point" it towards an area much like using mortars in war3 to attack ground? Then colossus would not simply wipe out entire armies at once because the user would have to target specific areas along with a targeting time/swivel.
I definitely agree we need more active abilities that aren't just effective with no downside.
Anyone can fungal marines to death because its undodgeable and instant and works for any level of player. The missile was a good idea in retrospect.
And something to slow the game down would be nice since there aren't many skirmishes in some games and it comes down to one army annihilating the other completely since there is no time to recover and its over so quickly.
Only TvT has consistent extended engagements with most games turning into a cat and mouse to do damage with harass followed by a large battle depending on who had the most successful worker disruption.
|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On April 16 2011 22:50 noobcakes wrote:
A lot of people are saying, "BW has been out forever, Sc2 still has time to develop"
True, but there is truth in the OP, that sc2 has been dumbed down to be attractive to all ranges of players, from the newb to the pro. Essentially making it less complicated and more one dimensional.
I just thought I'd reply to this post as I don't agree with you. SC2 hasn't been dumbed down, I think that if Broodwar was out today instead of Starcraft 2 it would be the same situation. I think both games are good for their own reasons. SC2's mechanics seem easier as they're not held back by technology. As I've said, I'm sure if Broodwar was released today you wouldn't have half the things that made broodwar what it was, which was a few bugs like patrol micro and limited unit selection.
SC2 is developing every single day, even on ladder new strats are coming out and the meta game is always shifting, that's a very good thing and I hope to see it continue. Remember when Mech was useless against zerg and now it's coming into play? Same with Mech against Protoss although it's not as developed as TvZ mech right now.
I don't think people should even be comparing the games as they're both fantastic games and blizzard has done an excellent job so far with Starcraft 2. How many viewers did this latest Dreamhack get? It was something like 80k. That's way more than any Broodwar tournament ever got outside of Korea and I'm happy SC2 is getting this kind of coverage.
One thing that I can't understand is the people who say the mechanics are easier. I know a ton of people who never played Broodwar and they've stepped into Starcraft 2 and they're finding it very difficult. The macro is almost the same with a few wasted clicks being removed and it's still hard for the majority of players. Has anyone complaining about it, ever thought that maybe it's because they played Broodwar that they are good at Starcraft 2? It doesn't matter if you were D on ICCUP, just because your in Diamond or Masters now doesn't mean Starcraft 2 is a bad game, it just means you're better.
|
Not really sure what I am looking at here. A thread asking what SC2 is missing in the headline but any suggestion for change is banned by the one asking the question? I also don't like how the OP is drawing comparisons between the units of the games and asking for units from SC2 that fulfill specific roles but whenever somebody actually does that, their opinion is apparently just flat out wrong or null and void for some other reason.
Well anyways, it's been asked what units there are in SC2 that allow for map control other than the siege tank. Well, there are Thors which are effectively a ground to air siege unit. There are creep tumors giving vision everywhere and force tanks to advance slowly because of how dangerous banelings on creep are when unsieged. Sentries are obviously great at controlling ground as well since they can block off ramps very easily. Infestors are able to lock down entire areas from air attacks.
I believe that the notion of SC2 being a game of ball vs. ball due to a lack of map control enabling units is wrong. I believe it's the other way around rather. There are so many units good at controlling space in SC2 that you better be bringing everything if you attack somewhere.
I don't mind that much at this point. The skill ceiling in SC2 will eventually revolve around keeping your units properly apart instead of them clumping up (and it's really difficult to do). Kind of the opposite of brood war.
|
On April 17 2011 00:40 Hoodlum wrote:
First off, loved the right up...
In my opinion, being only a diamond player with no real mechanics to speak of, love the direction of SC2... If you haven't noticed the spectators of BW were few and far between..
Um, if you haven't noticed, even regular BW events draw much larger crowds than Sc2 events do, and I've never seen even the largest Sc2 events come close to the numbers that Starleague or Proleague finals can draw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
