|
Why the future of Pro-SC2 should be Tennis
UPDATE: Some comments about Team Leagues, et cetera.
+ Show Spoiler +When I posted, I thought people would flip out over the Arena-PPV stuff. I certainly guessed wrong there. As I said: Team leagues. In Korea, team leagues have had a chance to develop in a remarkably unique way, but it still seems to me like pounding a round peg in a square hole. In BW, players rarely jump ship, so players and teams can co-exist in a meaningful way. But ultimately, Starcraft is an individual game. Embrace it. If the truth of this statement is not self-evident, nothing I say will affect your opinion. Now, practice partners. Tennis players need practice partners too. Some people did point out the importance of developing builds and strategies in secret. That's a good point, I didn't consider that. So there is a legitimate team or clan function in players working together. Proleague or GSTL. Yes, I am aware of SKT1 and KT. I've been watching the VODs on-and-off for five years. I acknowledged the unique environment in Korea. But it works in BW because players stick with their teams for life, unless they join the military. Developing snipers for players on opposing teams, creating race-matchup specialists...like Sundance, I get it. It's interesting. But the central drama of the match is the match, which is one player against another. If you want e-sports to go mainstream, cut out the fat, and focus on that. So, teams...still an awkward third wheel in SC2. It has its charm, but if you count up the time SC2 teams are mentioned, versus players, its wildly in favor of individual players. Players have fan club threads. People stay up in strange time zones to cheer players, not teams. Be honest people. Again, I freely acknowledge that BW is unique, and teams have carved out a unique role. I'm not anti-teams. If SC2 teams survive and thrive, that's great. I'm simply pointing out that there is another way of organizing players and events, that has been very successful, and it's worth discussing, learning from, and copying. Davis Cup. Um, does anyone really care about Davis Cup?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xeKpD.jpg)
Tennis should not really require any introduction. It's a massive international sport. My intent in this article is to show the parallels between tennis and pro-SC2, and why the Starcraft community should follow the tennis model more closely and intentionally. I am not affiliated with the business side of esports at all, this is purely an amateur's opinion.
Tennis and Starcraft as Games
1. Both are individual games. Unlike team sports, such as soccer or basketball, the game hinges on the performance of a single person, not a team.
2. Both are adversarial, personal fights. Unlike golf or bowling, you aren't simply playing to compare who is better at something. You are playing directly against each other. Unlike tournament poker, you aren't playing against a table of individual players (unless it's heads-up). It's a 1v1 sport.
3. You can play multiple games per day, many days in a row, many times a year. It's not boxing. Boxing is physically taxing in a way that Starcraft is not.
Tennis and Starcraft as Professional Sports
The nature of these games dictate how they are played as professional sports.
1. The individual player is the celebrity. In tennis, there are no teams, just individual stars. Tennis fans follow players like Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer. In Starcraft 2, people follow players like MarineKingPrime, Nestea, and Stephano. The teams hardly matter in SC2. When MC jumped from oGs to SK, the MC fans followed him. Compare that to baseball. People are fans of the team, not the players. When a player is traded, they cease being fans of that player. In Starcraft, as in tennis, the fan loyalty is to the player, not the team.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WczJb.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eoQVX.jpg)
Superstars of their sport
2. The sport is set up as a series of tournaments. Dozens of people enter the tournament, and are eliminated in a series of individual matches structured into brackets. The matches are played over the course of weeks or days. In broadcasted tournaments, there is no way to show them all. They show selected matches from the early rounds. Just as there is a "Main Stage" in IPL or MLG, there is a "Centre Court" at Wimbledon. Only in the final rounds do they show every match.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y165n.jpg)
Centre Court
3. Leagues don't matter. While each tournament organizer will have their own set of rules, they don't have the marketing power to force players to commit exclusively to an individual league. The player brings the fans, and the money.
4. Each match between the players is set up as a best-of-X series. Due to the inherent randomness present in any given set, and the relative shortness of each set, tournaments generally arrange a best-of-3, best-of-5, or best-of-7 to make for a satisfying length for the viewer, and to give a fair test of strength for the individual players.
5. It's an unequal world. The best players get all the money, attention and sponsorships. The merely good only receive a small fraction of that. Even devoted fans of the sport might not know who they are.
Tennis Top Earners
1. Federer, Roger (SUI) $69,746,521
2. Nadal, Rafael (ESP) $46,789,842
3. Djokovic, Novak (SRB) $36,206,641
4. Roddick, Andy (USA) $20,228,866
5. Murray, Andy (GBR) $20,200,873
...
46. Isner, John (USA) $3,813,768
47. Seppi, Andreas (ITA) $3,674,402
48. Mayer, Florian (GER) $3,459,506
49. Gambill, Jan-Michael (USA) $3,455,425
50. Troicki, Viktor (SRB) $3,410,683
SC2 Top Earners
1. Jang "MC" Min Chul (KOR) $277,420
2. Jeong "Mvp" Jong Hyeon (KOR) $257,570
3. Lim "NesTea" Jae Duk (KOR) $238,620
4. Mun "MMA" Seong-Won (KOR) $158,630
5. Lee "MarineKing" Jung Hoon (KOR) $148,480
...
46. FXOpenPavel "BratOK" Kuznetsov (RUS) $23,050
47. Park "Squirtle" Hyun Woo (KOR) $22,660
48. Kim "GanZI" Dong Ju (KOR) $22,340
49. Seung-Chul "sC" Kim (KOR) $21,960
50. Jian "Fenix" Carlo Morayra Alejo (PRU) $21,660
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v0WlN.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CNRY0.jpg)
Winner takes all.
The Pro Tennis model as the future of SC2
1. A worldwide ranking system. The ATP assigns point values to tournament placements that players hold for a year. The point totals determine your ATP ranking. Starcraft should develop a similar ranking system. This has several advantages. It allows for proper seeding of brackets, to make them more fair. It encourages players to attend tournaments. It gives casual fans an immediate and easy way to determine underdogs in an match. It provides some tension and significance to tournament results over a year. Rather than a collection of individual events, we can talk about the rise and fall of a player.
To some extent, we already do this...have Nestea and MC already peaked? Are their glory days behind them? We can argue back-and-forth, but a ranking system, recognized by both players and tournaments, would give some structure to these stories. And stories are the lifeblood of sports commentary.
2. Focus on individual rivalries. Again, we already do this. Polt-vs-Stephano. MVP-vs-MMA. TLPD and Liquipedia provide an invaluable service in giving us the stats for matchups. Hopefully, Starcraft can develop epic rivalries like Nadal-Federer. Stories make sports more compelling.
3. Sponsorships should focus on players and tournaments, not teams. I don't have expertise in this, but it seems that team sponsorship is putting a round peg in a square hole. The dominant personalities are the players, not the team. The dominant media environment is the tournament, as there is no home court, no home team.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEnFrS18xkc
4. Teams should be sports agencies, not teams. To some extent they already are. They handle money, media, sponsorships, branding, PR. Starcraft 2 players need practice partners, sure, but again, it's not a team sport. Did anyone really care when Huk went from Liquid to EG? Or MC from oGs to SK?
5. SC2 Tournaments should be run like tennis tournaments. Revenue from sponsorships, ticket sales, and broadcast rights. I don't want to go into the Arena-PPV debate, but I'll simply observe that tennis as a pro-sport grows by allowing casual viewers to watch for free. Then, as they get more into it, they pay to attend tournaments. PPV is not part of the equation.
6. Team leagues. In Korea, team leagues have had a chance to develop in a remarkably unique way, but it still seems to me like pounding a round peg in a square hole. In BW, players rarely jump ship, so players and teams can co-exist in a meaningful way. But ultimately, Starcraft is an individual game. Embrace it.
7. The "small" things. In tennis, the player is given a great deal of space. The players prep their minds in their private locker rooms, walk out, and get ready, and start playing. They decide, within certain time limits, when to serve. They don't do pre-game interviews. They have a press conference hours or days before the match, and an immediate post-game interview.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mwATA.jpg)
Hell, we even call them "Opens", just like tennis.
|
Reasonable argument... I like it!
|
Why can't the future of Pro-SC2 be Pro-SC2?
|
That's a very interesting post, and I can see some similarities. However, I disagree on the team part. SC2 teams have fans just has sc2 players have fans. Some teams organize events, or other deliver other kind of contents such as interview, coverage etc... Teams aren't simply multiple players sharing sponsors or a group pf pratice partner with the same clan tag, they are more than that.
Other than that, good post, I never really saw the ressemblemce between tennis and SC2 and it's true that they are very similar. However, I feel like sc2 has a more personal side to the player, or maybe it's just that I don't follow tennis and making an ignorant statement.
EDIT : Oh yeah, and your title is funny, I originally thought you were saying that SC2 should evolve into tennis, not the same thing at all 
|
The future of PRO SC2 will be PRO SC1
|
I really like your argument, but I feel that SC2 fits well with basketball too as fans are fans of both players and teams just like people can be fans of both Chris Paul and the LA Lakers.
|
I agree with everything except with the teams part. I think SC2 teams function more as F1 teams: players represent a team, but they compete between each other, however a win for a player is also a win for the team.
|
Completely disagree on the team thing, nothing like good old SKT vs KT proleague finals to remind us how much teams mean in this game.
|
I absolutely disagree with your rejection of team leagues. I consider myself a casual spectator but a serious player. There are one or two players who I follow because I became a fan of them at some point in the past, but otherwise I watch relatively little starcraft though I play quite a bit. The one exception is team leagues. There is something so compelling about a GSTL style team league which makes me a huge fan of the model. The drama and anticipation connected with these matches is a great spectator sport and I believe that if SC2 wants to make the jump to the next level (broadcast television), this is the most likely form to translate across. I hope that team houses, team leagues, and strong team unity is the future of SC2 everywhere, though especially in the foreign scene where it is for now lacking.
|
Interesting, well written post.
Poster above: in F1, its not 1v1, right?
|
Good post, some nice points, and I agree with a lot of it, but not all of it. Teams form a large, integral part of StarCraft 2. When eSports leagues replace the current oldSports leagues at the top, they won't look exactly like any of the oSports leagues. We'll have something new and glorious to behold. Something even I can't foresee.
The future of Pro-SC2 is Pro-SC2.
|
I for one do enjoy cheering for certain teams (and against other ones). For example, I always cheer for Liquid players, regardless of what race/nationality they are for the simple fact that they are on Team Liquid. I am sure there are other people that cheer for certain teams as well, and therefore, the team should be a part of SC2. In fact, team leagues may be the innovation that StarCraft brings to the sports world.
|
I really like this write-up, you make some good points. However, I disagree about the Huk argument. People definitely cared when he went from Liquid to EG.
I'm also not sure if I'm the norm or not but I always root for Liquid and Mouz players.
|
Agree with most parts except for the team one. As a previous poster said, although you cheer for the individual player, teams also play a huge part in preparation and improving at the game (just look at the emotion of each player and each coach in the SPL playoffs/finals when their teammates were winning/losing). Just because some teams in SC2 aren't fully utilizing the "team" system to get better at SC2 doesn't mean teams are not important to Starcraft.
|
doesn't tennis have davis cup that works similarly to team leagues? I mean yes that's different but there are differences in tennis and sc2 because in sc you need practice partners you can trust with builds and stuff so being completely individual doesn't work as well as in tennis (while yes tennis needs hitting partners and coaches, knowing how someone hits the ball is different than knowing a person's build order).
|
I think people did care quite a bit when Huk went to EG and MC went to SK. Not enough to make people hate them, but people still mention it all the time. Also people love the team leagues. They just have a quality to them that's completely different from individual leagues.
|
Agreed 100%. I compare SC to sports like this all the time, and i think its the only sensible thing to aim for.
|
Im an avid tennis fan, and I agree with you 
|
|
|
I have long thought SC2 should use a ranking system similar to that used in tennis. The yearly rollover gives much more consistent seeds and avoids the problem of one guy lucking his way to a finals and getting a high seed while better players are mashed together in early rounds because of one bad day.
I think you're wrong about the teamplay aspect. Training in tennis is fundamentally different, and is far more individual. It occurs mostly between a player, his coach and an otherwise empty court. Starcraft 2's does not, and surrounding great players with a variety of supporting partners is invaluable. Practice partners are not a minor issue that can be waved away by saying "players need them, sure, but..."
|
As others have said, the comparison is a good one except for teams. Teams are huge in sc2, and very few players have managed to do decent without teams. Team environments improve play in sc2 greatly, and many people would say team houses is one of the great differences between Koreans and Foreigners.
Otherwise though, I feel like most of what you said are fair comparisons, and for the most part sc2 players already are the celebrities. Although sponsors support teams, its the players that end up getting the sponsors views. Sponsors supporting teams is also a much safer venture. It is far easier to fall from the top as a sc2 pro compared to a tennis pro(as far as I can tell, it seems I hear about the same tennis pro's all the time in the news). Having teams to support players in their ups and downs helps players maintain their careers and ability to practice far easier, and it makes it far less of a risky investment as a sponsor. The chances of a team like EG not having at least one of their players get some sponsorship views in is pretty low. Compared that to the chances of someone like White-Ra not be seen in a tournament due to bad luck. Hell, I watched a majority of the IPL stream this past weekend and I can't remember seeing one White-Ra game.
|
I agree and also feel that SC2 really needs "Majors". Right now all the tournaments change each year while in tennis the majors remain the same every year and feel really important since they are so infrequent.
|
I think you have some good points but you're really underselling the importance of teams in SC2. A lot of people actually did feel slightly betrayed when Huk switched teams and I know that EG and Liquid have particulary built up fan bases specifically for their teams beyond just rooting for individual personalities. SC2 has a lot of similarities to tennis but some of the most exciting events are like GSTL where the teams are important. We might have things to learn from the tennis world but SC2 is a unique thing that shouldn't be modeled after something from the past completely.
|
Djokovic is god.
that is all.
|
Teams are necessary as a way of pooling sponsorship-money and providing a framework when the money is tight. But as we've seen with grubby, if the interest is big enough, you don't need a team. When the money and attention grows large, teams become irrelevant to the player. Remember, in tennis, every young player starts out in the local club. From there they may go to larger clubs or be part of a school-team. They get to experience the same kind of team spirit and communal practice.
It's much later in their lives, and at a point where there's a good chance of success, that the players transfer to the 'adult' world of handlers without team affiliation. Small money = teams, big money = managers.
*Oh, and it's a natural transition for the player to have a representative who takes care of the interest of the player. As it stands, the SC2 teams really hold all the cards when dealing with players - except for the very best, who can pick and choose their team.
|
No teams? Davis cup = team league.
|
Interesting. I definetly agree that players need more care taken with prep time. An interview a few hours beforehand and then they can warm up without interuption untill the post-game interview.
I really think teams are having more traction in SCII though. This may be because of the huge importance of teams in the sport at the moment, as a player cant live off of prize winnings alone (unlike tennis where millions of dollars are made and a player could go without sponsorships if they wanted too.)
|
On April 10 2012 10:06 Jarree wrote:
No teams? Davis cup = team league.
davis cup is the wcg of tennis
aka no one cares
|
Wait, teams don't matter? Have you ever visited the BW section of the forums, watched, or even heard of Proleague? I would argue even though there are celebrities in the BW scene (Flash, Bisu, etc) fans rally around the teams just as much as individual players. The proleague format has a certain compelling element to it that solely individual competition never will. It is a format where players who have extremely strong specific match-ups can truly shine and mindgames between the coaches can be as important as the players themselves.
Not to mention it allows a place for players to be recognized and get familair with televised matches before entering individual competition.
|
Interesting read and ideas. Thanks for posting.
I like how many parallels there are between the two... Very interesting.
|
More than anything else, this thread has tempted me to go to TennisLiquid.net and post "Federer Bonjwa" everywhere.
But teams are evolutions of clans as competitive gaming became progaming, it helps new players rise up through the ranks, through scouting, being signed, and practice and coaching with the team. I feel the team structure is good for ESPORTS, as without it, a lot of players would find it harder to compete and also travel abroad to attend tournaments, not to mention it seems that teamless players tend to perform worse than those with teams, so I doubt teams will want to just disband.
|
Reasonable points, though teams still are quite centric to the scene, despite how less prevalent the team leagues are compare to BW's Proleague. One of the reasons why Incredible Miracle has such a big fanbase is because of the combined championships of their two players MVP and Nestea. Its the players that make the teams popular. In an ideal world, we'd want the two to coexist, individuality yet still team centric.
|
Good Idea, We should defenitely adapt this kind of system
|
On April 10 2012 09:14 paintfive wrote:
The future of PRO SC2 will be PRO SC1
get out
i like the post,
and official ATP-style point system would be amazing but it would require some sort of governing organization to decide point values for various tournaments, and getting collaborating with the koreans on this could be a problem.
not sure i TOTALLY agree with your arguement that all sponsors should be individual, because while tennis has davis cup, which isnt that big of a deal, sc2 has (slightly) more emphasis on team leagues, and sc1 has even more.
|
yer but unlike starcraft, you can't win cheaply in tennis
|
I like your argument, thumbs up. From observing the IPL this weekend and I know it could be better and perhaps some of your ideas would make it less 'eye rolling at times'
|
On April 10 2012 09:36 Daniel C wrote:
Interesting, well written post.
Poster above: in F1, its not 1v1, right?
in F1 its free for all :D
or AT vs AT vs AT vs AT vs AT vs AT vs AT vs AT :D
|
I've been making the PGA/ATP argument for eSports for a long time. It just works a lot better as a model, and you've outlined plenty of the proper reasons and valid points. Unfortunately I've just never had the time to put it down in such a way. Top marks for putting it all together and sharing it for everyone! :D
|
Interesting post. Only thing I question is you suggesting sponsors sponsor players, not teams. Being on a team helps the player get the publicity needed to gain fans.
Also, tennis can be considered a team sport. Think back to high school tennis matches. Two school teams played each other with their top 6 or so players playing 1v1 matches. Whichever school won more matches, won the meet. Similar to how some team competitions in SC operate.
|
When it comes to SC2 i must admit that in this very moment i almost couldnt care less about what team a player plays for. However when it comes to BW Proleague in Korea obviously the teams are rock solid, have history and they most definitely matter. If you saw the epic proleague finals a few days ago KT vs SKT you know what im talking about. So we already know that the team aspect can flourish within 1v1 RTS competition given the right circumstances.
If SC2 would ever reach such a point I think the streched out league format is great for team vs team and the single event format is great for individual vs individual. A streched out league format for 1v1 could also work if done right, however i must admit that NASL is not at the top of my sc2 following priorities today (neither is the GSTL though).
Even when its a team vs team league the hype will still mostly be for certain individuals. Its exciting to follow individuals in a streched out teamleague and see what record they gonna get etc, but its also fun to have your team that you cheer for (look at the crazy fan girls in korea who belong to team fan clubs etc). So in my perfect sc2 world we have a big teamleague (fittingly it could be one that takes place in korea and one for outside of korea since we all cant play on the same server due to lag reasons) that stretches over a longer time (a CW could be a 5 x bo5 1v1s for example) and eventually reaches playoffs and then a big finale, and then we have these big individual events that spans over a number of days that takes place consistantly once a month (or perhaps more like once a 1 and ½ month).
Obviously its a huge challange to get the SC2 scene to such a place though, BW certainly wouldnt have reached its point with all these great and solid teams if the players and teams hadnt created what become KeSPA. Surely it could be done without such an organization but i dont see that happening in the near future when it comes to SC2.
However, the well functioning SC2 ladder is actually something that gives less incentives to form prohouses and limiting your practise partners (which would be the main factor in forming serious and loyal teams) like what has happend in the BW scene, but over time if SC2 becomes serious enough it might still reach that point.
|
On April 10 2012 09:58 Belisarius wrote:
I have long thought SC2 should use a ranking system similar to that used in tennis. The yearly rollover gives much more consistent seeds and avoids the problem of one guy lucking his way to a finals and getting a high seed while better players are mashed together in early rounds because of one bad day.
I think you're wrong about the teamplay aspect. Training in tennis is fundamentally different, and is far more individual. It occurs mostly between a player, his coach and an otherwise empty court. Starcraft 2's does not, and surrounding great players with a variety of supporting partners is invaluable. Practice partners are not a minor issue that can be waved away by saying "players need them, sure, but..."
Also, aside from just finding practice partners, there is the issue of having a group of people to practice with who you can rely on not to share anything about your practice. Tennis doesn't really have a meta game, and you can't prepare specific strategies for a specific match in the same way you can in sc2. When a korean team has a player in a gsl final, they pool alot of their players together to help that one player get specific builds set up for each map and because they are a team in a team house, they can easily and securely do this without any risk of information leaks.
Also, tennis doesn't require the same ammount of practice that sc2 does (or at least in the same way.) Tennis players at the top level are generally older, and during their teens just played at tennis clubs. Starcraft doesn't have this infrastructure of "starcraft clubs" where teenagers can practice all day long, and as the average age of sc2 players is much lower, they can't spend 8-10 years practicing every weekend and after school to get to where they are, they need a long time spending 10 hours a day training (in most cases.) And without the team setup (this is korea i'm talking about) where you can have bed and food provided and a computer so you can just train, i don't think the same results would be given.
Edit: also with reference to your discussion of having a global ranking, i also feel this is alot more feasible in tennis then in starcraft. In tennis all major opens are sort of "run" by the same group of people in the sense that you have the same top players at each event, and each event coordinates with the others. In starcraft you have hundreds of independant events, and you very rarely get the same players at the same event. While teamliquid does have elo rankings of all the players, people will never view that as the be all end all of player rankings as there are so many little complications which that cannot include. What if you have worlds best pvt, but shitty pvz and pvp, where do you belong on the ranking? what if polt goes to four euro tournaments and stomps a bunch of mid tier foreigners, while mkp loses a really close gsl match vs bomber, should this be enough to put polt above mkp on the scale? How do you compare two players who havn't played each other in months but who both won their respective tournaments?
A quantitive ranking system like tennis has only really works if most/all of the top players are at every event, something which doesn't happen in sc2.
|
Your entertaining the idea that team leagues should be disbanded is absurd.
|
On April 10 2012 11:07 Pasargadae wrote:
Your entertaining the idea that team leagues should be disbanded is absurd.
I have to agree with this fine gentleman.
|
I'm really looking forward to 5 more pages of people beating to death the idea that team leagues should stay while ignoring everything else
|
Team leagues are the best thing in Starcraft. Can you imagine the viewership for a GSTL style ( in a studio, live and well produced ) EG vs TL match?
In my opinion individual league weekends are getting stale, I'd rather have a western GSTL tournament that runs for months and has a grand final just like the GSTL/Proleague than a MLG/IPL/whatever else weekend every week.
The rest of your post is good, but saying Team Leagues should go away is ridiculous.
|
i am a (very low level) professional tennis player so i just wanted to respond to some of your points from a primarily tennis aspect since its what youre taking your model from and im sorry if im restating anything i didnt read anything but op
*starting from the pro tennis model as the future of sc2*
1. The ranking system includes tournaments from the majors you watch on tv all the way to tournaments with a total prize pool of 10k which when its one organization running all of them still has a pretty iffy ranking system it will be much harder for someone arbitrarily judging how much points each tournament is worth and youre going to end up with an "official" ranking that is no better than say teamliquids or gosugamers
2. this is done more to get nontennis fans interested in tennis which is a hard thing to do for sc2 but still important anyway
3. not rly going to touch this one but sponsorship in sc2 is always going to be an uphill battle and its entirely in the sponsors control how they handle them
5. the main three ways tennis tournaments make their money is thru atp sponsors, selling broadcast rights obviously but they also get a large amount of the money from selling the tournament's site rights to the various cities. the last two options arent really viable so unless someone like intel is willing to put forward alot of money ad revenue can only go so far. just a side note all tournament entry fees are free to players and at the higher level tournaments everyone in them gets paid just to show up
6. davis cup is the closest thing to a team league tennis has and look how much excitement there is in it (yes i know alot is due to national pride)
7. this would be great but unfortunately tennis players are required to give short prematch interviews and postmatch interviews if they win and sign some autographs as they leave the court. also they get hounded pretty badly at the practice courts
|
As someone who used to be a ranked USTA member, you are wrong about there not being a meta-game. I'm not going to fully detail it, and it's obviously more subtle (and minor) than sc2, but try watching a youtube tennis strategy channel like yellowfuzzyballs. A basic concept is neither player knowing what percentage shot the other player is taking. I had a weak cross court backhand for over a year and I would try to hit 70% shots during the first couple of game in the hopes that the other player would not detect this weakness. Even if the 30% error connects on a couple, he won't know that I'm shooting at 70% until he's seen the shot 10+ times.
The main technical difference I see between tennis and sc2 is the number of standard deviations between skill level. The world #1 tennis player is much better than the world #10 (and would very rarely lose a single bo5 match), but in sc2 world #1 vs world #10 is not as favored.
|
2. Focus on individual rivalries. Again, we already do this. Polt-vs-Stephano. MVP-vs-MMA. TLPD and Liquipedia provide an invaluable service in giving us the stats for matchups. Hopefully, Starcraft can develop epic rivalries like Nadal-Federer. Stories make sports more compelling.
SC2 has more compelling rivalries than tennis. A ranking system would actually hurt the hype for a big matchup. Polt vs Stephano has a lot more mystique around it than #7 vs #9 (their rank on SC2earnings.com, if it was based on true skill they'd be even lower).
|
i kinda thought the sc1 pro scene back long ag, with 1v1 1v1 2v2 2v2 1v1 set matchs was like my highschool tennis club, we played a best of 7, with 1v1s and 2v2 agaisnt other teams it was soo fun
|
One issue with the Pro Tennis Model right now is that the lower level players will not be able to sustain themselves unless viewership, sales and ultimately sponsorship increases.
Korea's success with the Proleague was being able to sell individuals, while still promoting teams and providing salaries for team members who train the ace individual to continue to progress without giving up their tactics/strategies to rivals.
Either way, the most important thing to build up is public access and passion for the sport, 2nd is to provide at least 100-200 people at the top enough money to play competitively, not just 2 dozen.
|
The whole Starcraft team system really throws thing for a loop and makes it its own sport, if it wasn't enough already. I do think this article is pretty sweet though, a lot of parallels between the two sports.
|
Both are individual games. Unlike team sports, such as soccer or basketball, the game hinges on the performance of a single person, not a team.
well shame on your for missing this week's SKT vs KT grand final.
|
yeah sometimes tennis isnt balanced either
|
On April 10 2012 09:13 Cybren wrote:
Why can't the future of Pro-SC2 be Pro-SC2?
This for sure. IDC about damn tennis srry tennis fans  ( I like my starcraft too much!!!
|
On April 10 2012 11:28 Callistodusk wrote:
I'm really looking forward to 5 more pages of people beating to death the idea that team leagues should stay while ignoring everything else
Everyone is saying that they mostly agree with the OP. Talking about why you disagree with something just tends to take up more space than saying why you agree with it.
|
Man i wish i could have written like you just did. I have thought this way for a while, though i disagree on teams, i believe people do care about teams, but its like Fifa soccer, for most guys there is no homecourt because they are in fucking england or spain or wherever for a friendly against a team of people also bought from around the world so its not like its a real homecourt advantage, and their will be fans for both sides, but it would still be less structured than that of BW which sort of mimics Baseball. Actually Baseball would work for a team league, and tennis for a Singles league, but thats just my opinion, or it could develop into its own system.
|
While many rag on you for trying to compare an athletic sport, and an e-Sport, I believe what you have to say is very interesting and I can see how there are similarities. For those that have not played the sport or are unfamiliar with it, a Tennis match is very much like Starcraft 1v1. You are out there on your own, the matches can be grueling and hours long grind. You barely get any time for rest except a brief pause between sets or switching sides. Of course there's not pausing in SC2 like this, but the sheer test of mental willpower is very similar. When you are pushed to your limit out on the tennis court, all you have left is guts and grit. Tennis may be boring to watch at times, but this is a real tough sport on the human body.
|
Interesting points.
Tennis may be very similar to SC2. We could learn from them. But we shouldnt copy them 100% without thinking.
So like many other I disagree on the teams part.
|
Really interesting read, I would have never thought of two completely different sports having so much in common. Wonder what it would be like if SC was more of a team vs team environment, obviously still 1v1, but the team leagues seem to be something i like watching, usually again to cheer for my favourite players. For some reason nothing in SC gives me that crazy OMG feeling than seeing two individuals play against each other in a best of 7 at the finals. I don't know if you can get a team vs team environment that compares enough in entrainment value to make it the dominate structure in SC2 but it would be interesting. It would then definitely be a huge factor in a player move like huk from Liquid to EG. Even thought it inst a big deal when a player changes teams because its such an individual game, i do find my self having to watch Liquid vs EG team battles just to see the rivalry which makes things entertaining for me.
|
It wouldn't work because SC2 is not as big as tennis. If you take teams out of the equation, no sponsors will give a shit about each players rating or whatever, and no up and coming players would ever get a chance to make it. The team system works because the big name players get paid a lot by the team, they place top 10 or whatever at events and make the sponsors happy, and the rest of the team survives off the top player's results while training until they can become big players themselves. Putting this system into place would eliminate everyone except the top few.
|
I was very skeptical when stumbling upon this topic, however, you really made a convincing argument that made a lot of sense! I never realized how similar these two games are, and it really stirs thought about how the model might be used eventually once Starcraft gets bigger and bigger!
|
I've always thought about having SC2 work in this way and with some systems of F1 as well. That is, something similar to the 'constructors championship'. Instead of doubles we have teams and it'll be awesome to have something akin to Davis Cup!
|
If starcraft players were able to make as much as tennis players then this would be an apt comparison. However, the fact that the top players *only* make around $200,000-$300,000 means that there is not enough incentive for up and coming players to hire coaches, have decent practice equipment/facilities, or even give up education/jobs in order to play starcraft. The reason teams work better in the current system is because it allows the younger players to practice in better conditions than they would otherwise. The teams benefit because, if that young player becomes a star, they get more fame and the sponsors that go with it.
|
I'm known in real life conversations to compare SC2 and Tennis, and that is the reason I like SC2 cuz it reminds me of watching tennis in a way. Honestly I am really happy someone else is talking about it this way.
|
|
|
This is a really smart and thought out post. Well done.
I do agree we should focus on the individual more, but team leagues are an awesome part of Starcraft eSports too. I think it's still possible to have both, with some improvements.
|
Yea gotta say that your post was written pretty dam good.. You bring up some really interesting points that i think are true ; ) Thanks for sharing!
|
Doing everything like they do in tennis might not work but can't think of any downsides with an ATP-like ranking system.
edit
For those that never heard of the ATP rankings: ATP Rankings, wikipedia
|
On April 10 2012 09:36 Daniel C wrote:
Interesting, well written post.
Poster above: in F1, its not 1v1, right?
No but the team-player dynamic is pretty similar to SC2 I think.
|
this
teamleague just not that fun
|
Not a well throught out idea. In tennis every top player has the sponsor money to fly out to a shitton of tournaments. In sc2 there are a lot of top players who can't afford that. Hence we need qualifications/subjective seedings.
|
is exactly what i think!!
tennis it's the best model for starcraft development!
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
No. It's nice not having the best player in the world completely quantified. It brings debate, if there was just a numerical ranking, that would be dull.
Also, your suggestion of getting rid of teams is ridiculous, for so many reasons Quite apart from the fact that team leagues are hugely entertaining to watch, and often can produce the best storylines. And as Gosuuser said, the game isn't large enough to sustain individual players, teams mean that players who haven't found success yet can still find practice partners, in korea a training house, the ability to fly to maybe 1 or 2 events etc. They get a chance to breakout. Also, team sponsorship makes so much more sense than player sponsorship. Should I sponsor Idra? OR, HuK, Idra, JYP, Puma, DeMuslim, iNcontrol, Machine, LZ? It's a nobrainer. With small exceptions, no player is big enough to sustain his own brand, unless you are a god in a previous game (Grubby) or combine winning loads with awesome showmanship (MC), you need to have multiple people together to attract sponsors.
|
I think teams add something to Starcraft that Tennis doesn't have, and thats not something we should discard. Teams represent unity, and unity is required for this "sport" to keep moving ahead!
|
On April 10 2012 19:43 Hider wrote:
Not a well throught out idea. In tennis every top player has the sponsor money to fly out to a shitton of tournaments. In sc2 there are a lot of top players who can't afford that. Hence we need qualifications/subjective seedings.
Internet.
and, oh btw, by every top player you mean like the top 30 of the world? yeah, you're right. Or do you mean everyone in the top 50 or top 100? Nope.
|
great reading, but to compare it, tennis is god damn boring and sc2 is complex, that have positives and negatives as starcraft is so much harder to understand for regulars xD
less regulars less money less sponsors and all you have is the problem again
but in 50 years everyone will understand esport because they are born with it so just wait and you can nerd while enyoing your pension xD and no one will watch tennis anymore .)
|
|
|
On April 10 2012 19:53 Gajarell wrote:
Chess fits better.
but chess isnt that main style that tennis have, i dont see that much chess in tv, also alot chess gamers switched to poker, also chess gamers count as nerds to xD
|
On April 10 2012 19:48 MCDayC wrote:
No. It's nice not having the best player in the world completely quantified. It brings debate, if there was just a numerical ranking, that would be dull.
Also, your suggestion of getting rid of teams is ridiculous, for so many reasons Quite apart from the fact that team leagues are hugely entertaining to watch, and often can produce the best storylines. And as Gosuuser said, the game isn't large enough to sustain individual players, teams mean that players who haven't found success yet can still find practice partners, in korea a training house, the ability to fly to maybe 1 or 2 events etc. They get a chance to breakout. Also, team sponsorship makes so much more sense than player sponsorship. Should I sponsor Idra? OR, HuK, Idra, JYP, Puma, DeMuslim, iNcontrol, Machine, LZ? It's a nobrainer. With small exceptions, no player is big enough to sustain his own brand, unless you are a god in a previous game (Grubby) or combine winning loads with awesome showmanship (MC), you need to have multiple people together to attract sponsors.
The ATP rankings don't determine who the best player is, the ranking determines who performed the best over the last year and seeds people according to that performance. It says nothing about who should beat who.
I find teamleagues in SC2 incredibly uninteresting, don't have a team I root for, and think that in general team leagues have too many matches in them that I don't care about. I'd be fine with getting rid of them (the teamleagues). The actual teams can stay, but should function as facilitators, not as some 'uniting' feature. SC2 is 1v1 and I don't want to see team nike vs team adidas in tennis either.
|
On April 10 2012 19:53 CoR wrote:great reading, but to compare it, tennis is god damn boring and sc2 is complex, that have positives and negatives as starcraft is so much harder to understand for regulars xD less regulars less money less sponsors and all you have is the problem again but in 50 years everyone will understand esport because they are born with it so just wait and you can nerd while enyoing your pension xD and no one will watch tennis anymore .)
Lol. 'tennis is god damn boring and sc2 is complex' There is a true master in both of them here, and he obviously got the credibility to claim tennis to be boring and sc2 to be complex. SC2, in my opinion, is just as easy to understand as tennis. Performing well in tennis is much much harder than performing well in SC2. Which agrees with your argument that in 50 years people will be generally way more lazy and will prefer sitting in front of a computer to actually doing something.
|
Team leagues are proven to be more interesting in Sc2 via viewership. But you can still run Tennis team leagues IMO. Good example I like it, very interesting read.
|
I hear you on a lot of points. I don't think the team aspect should be thrown out though. I've long thought the NCAA wrestling analogy is a little better in terms of keeping the teams in place. In tournaments, advancing in a bracket gives your team points, as well as having superior victories extra points. At the end of the day you have the individual champion, but also a race for the team champion, which makes it very interesting and also makes some of the lower bracket matches mean more because more is on the line. A player knocked into the loser's bracket can still win points for his/her team by advancing, at the same time denying other teams points. You may have a individual champion from one team, but if another team can advance enough players deep enough they can take enough points to win. For this to work the points rating system also has to be in place because seeding would become extremely important.
Getting a 2-0 victory might be considered a superior victory for extra team points, putting emphasis on players to get those points for their team or deny them from another team.
This system also indroduces a type of bracketology for the fans.
The only drawback is that while wrestling has many different weight classes and thus more competitors, in SC you only have one "group" of players so each tournament would be in fact one weight class.
Another form could be the NASCAR race for the cup format where all the player's placements earn them overall points for an end of the season award. The drawback to that would probably be that you would still have to separate the GSL from the rest-of-us due to the more difficult nature of the GSL.
|
United Kingdom1685 Posts
Damn, after looking at those earnings figures I've never been more glad not to be a progamer. It's peanuts. How does anyone get into pro-sc2 and not worry seriously about their future...? That's probably one of the most damaging factors of pro-gaming, especially when you consider that young people are being required to give up so much for a chance.
|
very bad analogies I would say
1. SC2 will definitely develop into that stage when teams are so iconic. Especially when KeSPA teams are coming
2. Leagues do matter. The Slams with hundreds years of prestige and million dollars of prize attract players & fans. I will still watch Wimbledon if Fed/Nad dont participate, I still watch OSL if TBLS fail in prelim. These tournaments are simplly historic and prestigious. I bet the serious and competent pros in Korea would commit to the GSL, the lesser ones who choose easy money oversea will disappear into oblivion sooner or later.
3. Only the Slams use bo5 (for men), all other ATP tourneys use bo3, all single elimination. At the same time there're shit tons of format in Sc2. You just dont compare a physical sport with electronic sport in that aspect
4. Sure Fed, Nad are better than those 40,41,42th players but Squirtle, sC can just annihilate like 25 players above them. The worldwide ranking you suggest just wont work cuz theres world of difference between Korea and the rest. No one takes International TLPD seriously
5. Tennis players can practice on their own with private coach. While Sc2 players can only become better in teamhouse environment. And thus the team needs to be recognized. Ever wonder why OSL has been struggling finding sponsors while Proleague never skips a beat? Those teamless or one-man-team players would go nowhere.
In overall your compare works better with street fighter imo. Making a thread on shoryuken or eventhubs may be more appreciated
|
On April 10 2012 09:07 YMCApylons wrote:
4. Teams should be sports agencies, not teams. To some extent they already are. They handle money, media, sponsorships, branding, PR. Starcraft 2 players need practice partners, sure, but again, it's not a team sport. Did anyone really care when Huk went from Liquid to EG? Or MC from oGs to SK?
Not so sure about the latter, but Huk to EG? Erm, I remember people talking about the saddest day in years or that they haven't been so angry and disappointed in a long time.^^
God that was a good day...
|
|
|
I'd really like to see something like a global ranking, which could be used for tournament seeding.
|
I really want team leagues, though. Everything the OP says makes sense, but it just makes me sad.
|
On April 10 2012 20:03 FXOBoSs wrote:
Team leagues are proven to be more interesting in Sc2 via viewership. But you can still run Tennis team leagues IMO. Good example I like it, very interesting read.
The Davis Cup is one of the coolest tennis events every year .
There's a ton of similarities between Tennis and Starcraft indeed, except on 1 point.
In tennis teamhouses and teamcoaches don't exist, every player has a personal coach and that coach also doesn't teach multiple tennis players.
Korea has proven what teamhouses can do for a player.
I agree with every other point tho.
|
One common misconception is the following:
People seem to think that Proleague is important/interesting because it's team vs team.
It isn't, it's because it is VERY REGULAR, near daily... The performance of an entitiy, be it player or team, is measured over the whole year and people can follow their favorite player nearly non stop whiteout having to wait for this next big tournament.
Btw:
5. Tennis players can practice on their own with private coach. While Sc2 players can only become better in teamhouse environment. And thus the team needs to be recognized. Ever wonder why OSL has been struggling finding sponsors while Proleague never skips a beat? Those teamless or one-man-team players would go nowhere.
Wait what?
Tennis.. The Sport that is way more developed than SC2 will ever be can go with players practising kinda "alone" (which just means they search practise partners/trainers/place to train themselves) has a training model that is worse than SC2's?
Please tell me your not serious...
Korean style Teamhouses exist for only 1 true reason: It's cheap. It's cheap for the teams, it's cheap for the players...
|
Great read, some very good points here.
I'd have to disagree with the team part too, they are essential, but other than that - you're on to something
|
On April 10 2012 19:51 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 19:43 Hider wrote:
Not a well throught out idea. In tennis every top player has the sponsor money to fly out to a shitton of tournaments. In sc2 there are a lot of top players who can't afford that. Hence we need qualifications/subjective seedings. Internet. and, oh btw, by every top player you mean like the top 30 of the world? yeah, you're right. Or do you mean everyone in the top 50 or top 100? Nope.
But the list from the OP with top 50 earners has number 50 earning more than 3$mil total from prize money alone. Looking at the wiki he's been playing internationally since ~2004 which means ~400k per year average, surely even disregarding sponsorship money he can afford to go to pretty much any tournament he wants.
Anyway, as has been mentioned teams are very important in SC since there isn't as much to be gained by playing by yourself than in tennis, and there is far less risk in practicing with your competitors in tennis since there's less actual information to be gained on competitors (mainly just gauging their form and what kind of balls they hit/whether they're playing defensively or offensively) compared to SC which is a game of imperfect information, and every practice match you risk giving something away which can help your practice partner if you meet in competition. Certainly there's an element of that in tennis as well, but it's small enough that it doesn't outweigh the drawbacks of forming teams, which I'd argue isn't the case in SC/2.
|
I agree 100% with everything you said apart from the point below. Tennis and Starcraft are very similar in all the ways you mention.
5. SC2 Tournaments should be run like tennis tournaments. Revenue from sponsorships, ticket sales, and broadcast rights. I don't want to go into the Arena-PPV debate, but I'll simply observe that tennis as a pro-sport grows by allowing casual viewers to watch for free. Then, as they get more into it, they pay to attend tournaments. PPV is not part of the equation.
The thing is to watch Tennis you don't directly pay towards the tournament but for example when the BBC broadcasts Wimbledon you have already paid a TV license which makes up the "broadcast rights" as you stated. I know that you could argue that we also pay for the internet to watch SC2 but none of that revenue ends up in say MLG's hands(and lets be frank here the money pumped into the broadcast by the TV licence alone is a colossal amount. Note: no advertisements and a few non-intrusive sponsors).
Therefore a company like MLG must find a method of plugging this huge gap in revenue. Therefore PPV if probably the best method of doing this even if it is not a popular.
Disclaimer: I can only speak for the UK when I talk about TV licence. I know nothing of TV licencing in other countries
|
Future of Pro SC2 will be Pro SC2, not Tennis.
|
On April 10 2012 20:36 timwac wrote:I agree 100% with everything you said apart from the point below. Tennis and Starcraft are very similar in all the ways you mention. Show nested quote +
5. SC2 Tournaments should be run like tennis tournaments. Revenue from sponsorships, ticket sales, and broadcast rights. I don't want to go into the Arena-PPV debate, but I'll simply observe that tennis as a pro-sport grows by allowing casual viewers to watch for free. Then, as they get more into it, they pay to attend tournaments. PPV is not part of the equation.
The thing is to watch Tennis you don't directly pay towards the tournament but for example when the BBC broadcasts Wimbledon you have already paid a TV license which makes up the "broadcast rights" as you stated. I know that you could argue that we also pay for the internet to watch SC2 but none of that revenue ends up in say MLG's hands(and lets be frank here the money pumped into the broadcast by the TV licence alone is a colossal amount. Note: no advertisements and a few non-intrusive sponsors). Therefore a company like MLG must find a method of plugging this huge gap in revenue. Therefore PPV if probably the best method of doing this even if it is not a popular. Disclaimer: I can only speak for the UK when I talk about TV licence. I know nothing of TV licencing in other countries
Thats simple:
1. If a national TV station buys it --> You paid for it buy Taxes/Media Fee.. Whatever your country has.
2. If a private TV station buys it --> You "pay" for it buy watchign adds.
3. If a pay-per view TV station buys it --> You paid for it with your channel access fee or whatever that is called.
The question is... What is good for SC2? Number 2 or 3?
|
On April 10 2012 20:34 Velr wrote:
Korean style Teamhouses exist for only 1 true reason: It's cheap. It's cheap for the teams, it's cheap for the players...
Not really. Strategy is alot different in sc2 than in tennis. in sc2 terms tennis would be mostly mechanics, while in sc2 build orders and stuff like that are sooo important. That way in tennis you need to scout your opponent before a match even starts to see what you're dealing against and then in match you just play in a way you see fits. In sc2 things are different and that's why having alot of people around you helps, because everyone figures some tiny thing out and then everyone practices it.
also, important thing to note:
Pyramid money scheme - in individual sports like tennis only top3 players attract sponsors etc, they are most fun to watch like in sc2 but you still need to have newcomers and people who can make an upset. In sc2 there's alot less money than in tennis so worse players wouldn't be able to afford any costs. In team system people for example sponsor IM because of Nestea and MVP but of that sponsorships they can afford to fly 5 people somewhere.
|
On April 10 2012 20:40 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 20:36 timwac wrote:I agree 100% with everything you said apart from the point below. Tennis and Starcraft are very similar in all the ways you mention.
5. SC2 Tournaments should be run like tennis tournaments. Revenue from sponsorships, ticket sales, and broadcast rights. I don't want to go into the Arena-PPV debate, but I'll simply observe that tennis as a pro-sport grows by allowing casual viewers to watch for free. Then, as they get more into it, they pay to attend tournaments. PPV is not part of the equation.
The thing is to watch Tennis you don't directly pay towards the tournament but for example when the BBC broadcasts Wimbledon you have already paid a TV license which makes up the "broadcast rights" as you stated. I know that you could argue that we also pay for the internet to watch SC2 but none of that revenue ends up in say MLG's hands(and lets be frank here the money pumped into the broadcast by the TV licence alone is a colossal amount. Note: no advertisements and a few non-intrusive sponsors). Therefore a company like MLG must find a method of plugging this huge gap in revenue. Therefore PPV if probably the best method of doing this even if it is not a popular. Disclaimer: I can only speak for the UK when I talk about TV licence. I know nothing of TV licencing in other countries Thats simple: 1. If a national TV station buys it --> You paid for it buy Taxes/Media Fee.. Whatever your country has. 2. If a private TV station buys it --> You "pay" for it buy watchign adds. 3. If a pay-per view TV station buys it --> You paid for it with your channel access fee or whatever that is called. The question is... What is good for SC2? Number 2 or 3?
I'm not arguing they the gap can't be paid I'm just saying that PPV is the best option for an internet broadcast.
Remember if starcraft goes to TV (most likely in amerca well before countries). Other countries will be immediately isolated if our countries are not quick on the uptake. Would the NA audience alone be able to sustain the viewer numbers? Not at starcraft 2's current popularity. Then we go back to the internet broadcast wherein PPV is the most sustainable business model.
|
That's a very creative way to look at it :o
|
Almost.. except starcraft IS a team sport. You know about team leagues, right?
|
You must not watch a lot of BW Proleague if you're saying that it feels like a square peg through a round hole. I put the finals of proleague up there with any individual league finals, they're just that good. You may say that it's silly to play a team-match format from what is ultimately a 1v1 game, but it just works. It's entertaining, provides a stable base allowing players to develop and still get paid (salary), and teams refine players into great players.
|
The thing I worry about is, in Tennis there are 4 "slam" tournaments a year. Wimbledon and the US, French and Australian opens.
For SC2 to work similiar to this would we have one organisation like MLG, IPL or GOM operate all 4 tournaments each year? If so then there's no room for competition. If instead we have each organisation holds 1 of the big tournaments each year. Then can that company sustain itself with only 1 tournament?
|
On April 10 2012 20:52 Space Invader wrote:Almost.. except starcraft IS a team sport. You know about team leagues, right?
That doesn't make it a teamsport...
A teamsport would mean they would play 7vs7 or something :p.
No, Starcraft is an individual sport.
Teams exist because it's easier for sponsors and the benefit of inhouse practice.
|
On April 10 2012 20:34 Velr wrote:One common misconception is the following: People seem to think that Proleague is important/interesting because it's team vs team. It isn't, it's because it is VERY REGULAR, near daily... The performance of an entitiy, be it player or team, is measured over the whole year and people can follow their favorite player nearly non stop whiteout having to wait for this next big tournament. Btw: Show nested quote +5. Tennis players can practice on their own with private coach. While Sc2 players can only become better in teamhouse environment. And thus the team needs to be recognized. Ever wonder why OSL has been struggling finding sponsors while Proleague never skips a beat? Those teamless or one-man-team players would go nowhere.
Wait what? Tennis.. The Sport that is way more developed than SC2 will ever be can go with players practising kinda "alone" (which just means they search practise partners/trainers/place to train themselves) has a training model that is worse than SC2's? Please tell me your not serious... Korean style Teamhouses exist for only 1 true reason: It's cheap. It's cheap for the teams, it's cheap for the players...
learn to read. I dont talk about which method is better. I just point out the wrong analogy of OP
and what does being cheap have to do here? It's a FACT that players can only develop and be good by being in a team. thats my point. (not to mention teamhouses aint fuckin cheap man. You dont know how costly is house renting in Korea)
|
Russian Federation138 Posts
Teamleagues can not be viewed like 1v1 games. They show you a whole new layer of the strategy. Because there are different matchups in SC2 team games involve using your players strength' against enemy team's weaknesses and planning the match based on that.
Just read Carn's blog about Korea vs Foreighners match where whole team developed a strategy agains MC's PvP using White-Ra's special tactics and Morrows gameplan for Dimaga to beat Nestea's unstoppable ZvZ. I appreciate team leagues much more now after i read it. It would be nice actually if teams releazed such a detailed story after the match like Carn did.
Also i feel because there are soooo many clanwars nowaday strategy is not planned so sophisticated way like in Korea vs the World series for each of them. When you watch Gstl you see so many cool builds developed to snipe the specific player and his strategy. You can not see this anywhere else. You just need to learn to appreciate those things more.
|
I've always though that all duel games should inspire themselves from tennis. Davis Cup and Starcraft Clan Leagues share almost the same format (4x1v1 and 1x 2v2) and as OP pointed out, there are a ton of similarities between the two.
I do disagree on the team part tho, starcraft is part of esports, and in esports, team are of the utmost importance. Teamleagues should be the most prestigious thing when it comes to tournaments but we're not there yet, and it will probably never be the case for SC2.
We really need a system like the ATP one, but for that we would need an international esport federation and i doubt it will happen within a decade. It's not going to happen until all tournament organizers are willing to put themselves back and agree to obey to a greater authority which will inevitably be a pain for them. For now everybody is looking to take it's own share of the pie while making it grow at the same time, i just think the timing is not right for this kind of organization, even if in the long run, the sooner we have a true international federation, the better for esports.
|
I think the SC2 scene would profit from a stronger focus on teams. Teams add a layer competition and depth of the stories.
Team leagues also offer more story in the first place, as each match is a story itself because the coaches use special cards for each round. The constant rotation of players (in the winner's league format) also ensures diversity of play.
|
Teams are not essential as some players are successful without them, though teams are more important for Starcraft 2. Wether you like tennis or not I do think it makes for a very good comparison for tournaments.
Having a worldwide seeding system would definitely be beneficial, to help establish rivalries among top players and to make sure they do not meet until later rounds. Also in allowing the structure of a tennis match where it is single elimination best of 5 sets (I realise not for everyone).
One of the issues that has been mentioned is becoming burnt out on watching Starcraft. When a big tournament is on there are enough matches and content to fill almost every waking hour(and then some) over one weekend. Which is tiring for spectators and especially for players competing in these marathon events.
I would really like to see a Starcraft 2 tournament with a seeding system and single elimination best of 5s played out over the course of a week or two. However I do no think it is there yet, in terms of players and staff being able to travel and stay somewhere for that long. Starcraft 2 still needs time to grow.
|
I opened this thread thinking "not another fucking thread like this", but upon reading OP I actually felt there were some really interesting, original points made here.
Firstly, I like your idea of a global ranking system. Every league seems to have their own small-time system, where flavour-of-the-month players hit top until reddit stops hyping them. The only problem with that system is putting in place without having an eSports governing body of some sort (inb4 Kespa 0.2)
As for the sponsorship of players and not teams, I somewhat think this is an interesting idea; teams often come across as the middle man in pro sc2 atm, people who aren't talented enough to play competitively, but want a pay cheque, and flights all over the world. Obviously, that's a very uninformed, naive opinion from me, but I haven't been behind the scenes to understand it better.
|
Interesting thoughts. I like it.
Yet the best anaology between "RL"-Sports and SC2.
|
|
|
Australia18228 Posts
In Tennis (since I don't watch/follow it), do the players practise with one another? Maybe that's why teams exist within Starcraft 2 - because players want to gather together to discuss and practise new strategies with one another, while in Tennis, you can only work on your mechanics.
|
I hope it doesn't turn this way, team aspect was amazing in bw T.T
|
On April 10 2012 20:44 bLah. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 20:34 Velr wrote:
Korean style Teamhouses exist for only 1 true reason: It's cheap. It's cheap for the teams, it's cheap for the players...
Not really. Strategy is alot different in sc2 than in tennis. in sc2 terms tennis would be mostly mechanics, while in sc2 build orders and stuff like that are sooo important. That way in tennis you need to scout your opponent before a match even starts to see what you're dealing against and then in match you just play in a way you see fits. In sc2 things are different and that's why having alot of people around you helps, because everyone figures some tiny thing out and then everyone practices it. also, important thing to note: Pyramid money scheme - in individual sports like tennis only top3 players attract sponsors etc, they are most fun to watch like in sc2 but you still need to have newcomers and people who can make an upset. In sc2 there's alot less money than in tennis so worse players wouldn't be able to afford any costs. In team system people for example sponsor IM because of Nestea and MVP but of that sponsorships they can afford to fly 5 people somewhere.
So... And your argument proofs what exactly? Why do the players have to live in kinda uncomfortable, kinda overcrowded houses with shared bedrooms? To improve their play and share strategies/tactis? LOL?
Why don't you see this model in any "true" Teamsport where it actually could be beneficial if the players knew each other in and out? Why do Football players not live in a big "football-house" right next to their stadium/training area? The answer is simple: Because they don't need cheap accomodation... They can still train together everyday whiteout living in the same flat and are most probably more relaxed and happy when showing up to train because they don't have to put their asses on the cum of their teammate when they go to the toilet.
|
On April 10 2012 21:10 iNbluE wrote:
Atp ranking is a joke...
It is, but it also does a fine job. The ATP ranking is mainly a seeding tool, ensuring that top players do not meet eachother too early in the various tournaments. The top 4 will arrive from seperate sides of the bracket to the semi-finals and it almost guarantees quality games. A similar system could do wonders for SC2.
Also, tennis is not that different from SC2 in terms of organization, it's just that in tennis a lot more money is earned so people can hire their entire personal staff at the absolute top level. Below the top level, players share coaches, facilities and practice together in smaller groups, much like the SC2 scene. Even in the SC2 scene we already have players like SK.MC going at it alone, arguably to their own benefit because they don't have to 'waste' time preparing for team leagues, where the rewards are usually rather minor due to them being spilt over the entire team.
|
On April 10 2012 21:26 Velr wrote:
So... And your argument proofs what exactly? Why do the players have to live in kinda uncomfortable, kinda overcrowded houses with shared bedrooms? To improve their play and share strategies/tactis? LOL?
Why don't you see this model in any "true" Teamsport where it actually could be beneficial if the players knew each other in and out? Why do Football players not live in a big "football-house" right next to their stadium/training area? The answer is simple: Because they don't need cheap accomodation... They can still train together everyday whiteout living in the same flat and are most probably more relaxed and happy when showing up to train because they don't have to put their asses on the cum of their teammate when they go to the toilet.
Living in crowded space is not a rule, if teams could afford it they would get better accomodation. But they would still live together because they have to spend 12 hours per day practicing/watching matches etc while in other sports people train alot less together. It would be too tiring to go somewhere, spend 12 hours and then travel back home.
btw.ATP ranking for sc2 would be stupid. Thing with that kind of rating is that it has to be balanced. there is known number of grand slams, master series tournaments etc for each year. We don't have that in sc2, we don't know how many big tournaments will there be in a year etc.
|
i have to agree that the pre-game interviews are stupid... i mean yeah it was fun at the beginning cuz the players talked shit to eachother and all but seriously at a high level the players should be completely focussing before a match and not be disturbed by stupidness... after the game is over yes interview them but not before!
|
I agree with the OP's idea.
The only problem is that the current SC2 fan base is not big enough to support it yet. Maybe LoL can.
How to grow the SC2 fan base you ask? Easy. Make SC2 Multiplayer FREE, and charge only for Campaign or other add-on Content.
|
While I don't think SC2 need to necessarily look for another sport on how to be run I have always compared SC to Tennis. Partly because I used to compete in tennis I guess.
|
I think it's a good post, with the exception that this is a strategy game unlike Tennis. You need a large number of very hardcore players who make zero money to push your top players to develop and tune strategies. The "team" is extremely important, but it's more like a race car driver than a tennis player.
I think it's why emerging nations are good in these kind of games. For every Nestea you have thousands of players in Korea who are making horrible business and personal decisions in terrible working conditions for zero money. Essentially, it's like trading years of your life living in abject poverty in hopes of winning the "jackpot".
That's why the team concept really hasn't picked up here in NA or Europe. There aren't a lot of bright and potentially skilled players who are willing to throw their life away for nothing.
So all that being said, I think team leagues are important for getting some of their peons who are throwing their life away to get some exposure in a very saturated work environment. Happy workers are good workers.
|
On April 10 2012 22:17 Escape wrote:
I agree with the OP's idea.
The only problem is that the current SC2 fan base is not big enough to support it yet. Maybe LoL can.
How to grow the SC2 fan base you ask? Easy. Make SC2 Multiplayer FREE, and charge only for Campaign or other add-on Content.
That's pointless. People already pirate the campaign, and a free mp would just make blizzard earn 0 dollars on its product.
LoL is a micro transaction game, and has a more similar business model to Farmville than it has to SC2.
|
I actually think, that's a pretty interesting view. The similarities never occured to me, despite playing tennis and sc2 for quite some time.
But I think, sc2 will never be able to evolve to a point that you can compare it with tennis.Tennis has an extremely huge fanbase, mainly because it exists for a pretty long time already and because it is somehow simple. Both players have racket, don't shoot the ball into the net, don't shoot too far, count the points. It is easy to play and hard to master.
Starcraft 2 on the contrary is hard to play and impossible to master. If you show a game of sc2 that is commented (for example by husky) to somebody, who has never played sc2 - they won't understand what's going on. Do the same with tennis and watch the difference.
Because the game isn't easy to understand, you have to play it yourself to understand how difficult it is and how extraordinary good, the pro gamers actually are. Then you can begin to admire the game and cheer for someone. Otherwise you just won't notice the difference in play of a progamer and any other gamer.
And this is the barrier, at which the fanbase of sc2 won't climb anymore: You need to play the game. As you can imagine, most of the elder population just won't want to do that, or won't have a PC with enoug processing power to handle the game.
Other than that, a lot of gamers aren't into a game as stressful as sc2 or strategy games in general. They prefer shooters, mmo or rpgs.
Because of the relatively small fanbase of sc, you just won't as many sponsors or rich sponsors as in tennis. Tennis is known and watched all over the globe, I believe sc2 won't ever reach that status (even if I desperately hope that I'm wrong). So how do the pro gamers finance themselves? They can't win every tournament they enter or even hope to gain price money. They are dependent on their sponsors. Famous pro gamers will be able to find sponsors for themselves without a problem, of course. But what's with the yet unknown and upcoming players? What if they have potential and want to enter pro gaming, but are afraid of not finding sponsors that can financially back up their decision.
Of course there is the possibility to stream your personal games and become a partner of twitch. But it really is hard to gain viewership, if you don't have success in tournaments and you can't be really successful, if you can't concentrate on gaming.
I believe teams are some kind of an assurance for players. Somehow unrelated to their recent success, they are secured. The have trainers and other gamers to speak to.
The world of Tennis is pretty scary, if you're alone. That's why you join clubs, to be able to train and meet people in the tennis club. You play practice games against your club mates. You may enter the club team and play games against teams by other clubs. Clubs pay professional tennis players to compete in this team vs team games (I'm sorry, if this sounds amateur like, I only know the german vocabulary :/ ). So actually you have a similar systems in tennis as we now have in sc2. Clubs are like a ramp to catapult you into professional gaming, the concentration on players really only starts in professional competition. Why not stay with a team system in sc2?
And the most important argument: Come on, how awesome is Team Liquid? :D
|
As both a tennis instructor and a StarCraft player, I really do see a lot of similarities between the games/ sports, and I think tennis is the most relatable traditional sport to StarCraft.
Nice job with the explanation, OP
|
On April 10 2012 23:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:As both a tennis instructor and a StarCraft player, I really do see a lot of similarities between the games/ sports, and I think tennis is the most relatable traditional sport to StarCraft. Nice job with the explanation, OP
As an ex-player (trained with one of the guys on your top earners list  ) I completely agree. I would love for a tournament to implement a 2 week offline tournament like one of the Tennis majors.
|
On April 10 2012 09:07 YMCApylons wrote:
Proleague or GSTL. Yes, I am aware of SKT1 and KT. I've been watching the VODs on-and-off for five years. I acknowledged the unique environment in Korea. But it works in BW because players stick with their teams for life, unless they join the military. Developing snipers for players on opposing teams, creating race-matchup specialists...like Sundance, I get it. It's interesting. But the central drama of the match is the match, which is one player against another. If you want e-sports to go mainstream, cut out the fat, and focus on that.
Nah that's more than an exaggeration, it's just wrong. Players change in bw fairly regularly. I remember Kwanro from CJ --> Stars --> SKT1, Light from MBCHeros --> Stars, ForGG from Oz --> KT and then there are countless other historical examples. More recently, there have been less, but that's mainly to do with all the teams folding and thus players being picked up by other teams or retiring in some cases (and it would be wrong to see them as "transfers" as they are forced).
Granted, there seems to be more movement in sc2, but if we exclude players moving from Korean teams to foreigner teams, I would say it isn't much more than about double the transfer rate from Korean to Korean team, compared to BW.
I think that people do care about the sc2 teams. And that will continue to grow.
|
The future of SC2 proscene is BW proscene...
BW was/is the N°1 esport in korea
With a bigger audience, sponsors, better teams, tv shows, etc
SC2 needs to make the public change
The future is already stablish... be as big as broodwar =)
|
On April 10 2012 23:30 Zcience wrote:
And this is the barrier, at which the fanbase of sc2 won't climb anymore: You need to play the game. As you can imagine, most of the elder population just won't want to do that, or won't have a PC with enoug processing power to handle the game.
Other than that, a lot of gamers aren't into a game as stressful as sc2 or strategy games in general. They prefer shooters, mmo or rpgs.
Number one problem just listed here. It's also the last thing anyone ever talks about in any rational manner. Truth is, even though Tennis is an easier game to comprehend and has a much larger fan base, this is also the number one issue with growing Tennis as a sport.
How do you get more people to play your sport?
|
|
|
Team leagues are going to be a big thing in sc history if it isn't already. Most fans enjoy watching multiple players, and if those players are all part of the same team the team leagues can bring that global competition together. What I'm using to say is I agree with the tennis and sc comparison, but the way teams are set up as sport agencies is being vague to their description. Playing any video game can be taxing which is why most people suggest them in small doses. The team commmunity not only helps players mental focus but their practice routine as well.
|
The positives: Excellent writeup, you make some great points about the nature of 1v1 SC2, how it relates to tennis' established ranking/tournament system, and how making the switch to an ATP-like system would be good for storylines/seeding in SC2. Tennis really is the best model for SC2 *from an INDIVIDUAL perspective.*
The negative: Team leagues are so important to SC2's growth I can't even explain it in this post. The NFL and Baseball are likely many times as popular as professional tennis for the simple reason that they are team sports. Getting true team leagues in NA and EU are what will take SC2 from being almost non-existent in the public's consciousness to something that people will talk about (even if its very few people). In my honest opinion, without teams, SC2 will simply die off.
|
On April 10 2012 10:07 turdburgler wrote:davis cup is the wcg of tennis aka no one cares
davis cup brings out the most epic sports athmospheres i've ever seen. serbia (winning in 2010) had one hell of an enthusiastic crowd in the finals against france
|
On April 10 2012 22:17 Escape wrote:
I agree with the OP's idea.
The only problem is that the current SC2 fan base is not big enough to support it yet. Maybe LoL can.
How to grow the SC2 fan base you ask? Easy. Make SC2 Multiplayer FREE, and charge only for Campaign or other add-on Content.
If SC2 Multiplayer were free, there would be no SC2. One difference between Tennis and SC2 is nobody "owns" Tennis. Also, tennis has been around many, many years, and understanding the game as an incoming fan is much easier. SC2 is too complicated to hava a widespread fanbase, outside of those interested in playing video games.
|
Really cool point this. I like it.
|
At first I thought this was one of those joke threads. And then I read it...it's actually a pretty good write-up.
I agree somewhat, but I still feel that the players need teams to arrange the practice partners, but how can these organizations exist without an image? How can you captivate a player to join your organization and provider the services of a good partner for a given race if you aren't know and don't show results for yourself?
|
Tennis is an awful sport so I hope SC2 becomes nothing like it. Long live team leagues!
|
On April 11 2012 00:19 UndoneJin wrote:
The positives: Excellent writeup, you make some great points about the nature of 1v1 SC2, how it relates to tennis' established ranking/tournament system, and how making the switch to an ATP-like system would be good for storylines/seeding in SC2. Tennis really is the best model for SC2 *from an INDIVIDUAL perspective.*
The negative: Team leagues are so important to SC2's growth I can't even explain it in this post. The NFL and Baseball are likely many times as popular as professional tennis for the simple reason that they are team sports. Getting true team leagues in NA and EU are what will take SC2 from being almost non-existent in the public's consciousness to something that people will talk about (even if its very few people). In my honest opinion, without teams, SC2 will simply die off.
Football and baseball are team sports. It is literally impossible to play them without a team. You form a team and they individually compete versus eachother. Tennis, golf, badminton (and many more) are individual sports, but you can modify them in such a way that it becomes somewhat of a team sport. The team version in these sports is usually less exciting and less popular than the individual leagues.
I personally don't dislike SC2 team leagues, it's just that I don't care about them. Most teams (especially western ones) are artificial constructs that aren't even 'teams', just a random group of players that happen to be contracted by the same overlapping organization. Does anyone honestly think the EG korea guys regularly practice with the NA guys? Or liquid KR with liquid EU? I honestly don't believe so, and while it might be interesting to project a 'team image' as such a close group of friends (or whatever), I don't think its reality.
On April 11 2012 00:51 ravemir wrote:
At first I thought this was one of those joke threads. And then I read it...it's actually a pretty good write-up.
I agree somewhat, but I still feel that the players need teams to arrange the practice partners, but how can these organizations exist without an image? How can you captivate a player to join your organization and provider the services of a good partner for a given race if you aren't know and don't show results for yourself?
You do what EG does. Wave money around and convince people that if they join your team they obtain certain benefits that will help a player further both their career and your organization. Teams are simply facilitators. All major tennis players are part of 'teams', lots of them probably have the same representation when it comes to certain aspects of their professional lives (such as travel, sponsorships, etc), usually in exchange for a fixed percentage or something similar.
|
I agree with everything the OP said.
I have thought the same thing since eSports really started to make it outside of Korea (~2009). Tennis provides a great example and precedent to follow for the SC2 pro-gamers and teams.
Thank you for taking the time to put these opinions into formal word.
|
I like the idea of the ranking system but I don't think I can be easily implemented in SC2 scene. Since there are too many new tournaments popping up and many of the current ones do not have a fixed scheduling, unlike tennis where the grand slams happens invariably once a year. TLPD does a good job of tracking a section of the scene but not the entirety.
Also, in term of skill, tennis has a very large skill gap where almost every tournament, the top seeded ( 1 and 2 will almost make it to the finals ) the skill gap in SC2 is not quite as large where any underdog has a reasonably amount of chance to win. I think the difference comes from the amount of games play within an 1v1. In tennis, its essentially BO11 layered within another BO5 series - relating a game in tennis to a game in SC and a set in tennis to a series in SC. This decreases the chance of an upset by quite a lot.
From a person who follows both tennis and SC2, I like this comparison post. However, I have doubts to whether SC2 should follow any preexisting model of sport.
|
On April 11 2012 00:03 therockmanxx wrote:
The future of SC2 proscene is BW proscene...
BW was/is the N°1 esport in korea
With a bigger audience, sponsors, better teams, tv shows, etc
SC2 needs to make the public change
The future is already stablish... be as big as broodwar =)
Being as big as BW would be a failure IMO. While it's awesome that BW is as big as it is in korea, an exceptionally large majority of people out of that country have never heard of it. To say that BW is what SC2 proscene should aspire too seems.. just limiting and stupid to me. BW was successful because it filled a niche market in a small asian country and that's really the only place in the world there was wide recognition, following the same model as last time seems almost silly when we now easily have the potential to go world wide even more so than now.
Just from anecdotal evidence, most people i know only give a passing glance to team leagues in SC2, if someone could pull up some figures i'd guarantee that tournaments that focus on individuals bring in alot more viewers than teams do.
|
On April 11 2012 00:53 Amlitzer wrote:
Tennis is an awful sport so I hope SC2 becomes nothing like it. Long live team leagues!
........................................What makes you say such a thing?
|
the biggest difference is teams are practically a necesity in Starcraft, unlike in tennis starcraft has a wide range of skills that need to be honed and specific build and build counters to work on and the best way to do that is to be a part of a group of gamers who you can trust and mutually work on getting better
|
On April 11 2012 00:53 Amlitzer wrote:
Tennis is an awful sport so I hope SC2 becomes nothing like it. Long live team leagues!
Lol Tennis is one of the best Sports ever. >.<
|
On April 10 2012 21:10 iNbluE wrote:
Atp ranking is a joke...
Of course a Swiss guy would say that, lol.
|
This was nice to read, and I've thought this for a long time. However I'll of course have to disagree about you being able to play multiple games of Tennis in a day. Then again, I'm not sure what you think "multiple games" would mean(If it's just until a point it's not too bad, if it's an entire match with 5 sets it's incredibly exhausting), however that there is the main difference.
In Tennis there's numerous tiny games where you basically start fresh again and again and play for a short time until someone fails to return the ball, in SC2 the matches last much longer. It's in my opinion more comparable to chess if anything, even though there too the differences are pretty obvious(turn-based vs realtime). However even so, I agree with you mostly.
I personally think that they should try to start pushing more multiplayer aspects into the game, with the proper maps stuff like 2v2 tournaments could be a lot of fun to watch(If they were played by dedicated pros who practice same amounts as the current 1v1 pros instead of how it currently is with it mostly being casual) and I'm sure we'd see a ton of amazing things. I'm pretty sad that SC2 is just a 1v1 game, because I'm sure that even the casuals would appreciate the 2v2 and 4v4 games. I at least enjoy watching them if they are high level, but the general level of 2v2 and 4v4 just isn't too high yet because no one practices that.
Tennis also has 2v2 tournaments!
|
I dont agree and think the whole argument is rather stupid to be honest.
a) Tennis is also a team sport (Fed Cup, tennis clubs form teams who compete with other, at least in Germany on an amateur level).
b) Realizing that professional SC2 and Tennis have much in common is just stating the obvious. I mean, if you had abstracted from Tennis and included table tennis, badminton or even chess I wouldn't say anything, but seriously: realizing that in both games 1v1 is the most popular mode is like... woho. What comes next, we should also abandon 2v2 because people like to play/watch 1v1 more?
c) If there are no teams, please tell me, how exactly players are supposed to live on pro gaming? Who is going to pay for everything, food, shelter, equipment, tourney fees.... ? Afaik there is no international E-sports federation with a budget of $50000000 gained from tax money/sponsors that is distributed to national federations who themselves pay the players. And how many players can live from personal sponsorship? 2? 3? 10?
d) If you honestly think that teams and team leagues are irrelevant, I dont know what to say. Even if it was possible for a player to live on pro gaming through individual sponsorship/national funding, the success of team sports like soccer, basketball........ compared to (largely) individual sports like Tennis/Table Tennis/Boxing should convince you that it is probably a good idea to have teams competing with each other in some sort of league. In Germany public interest in Tennis decreased rapidly after the retirement of Stefanie Graf, Boris Becker and Michael Stich. Teams however can exist forever
|
"Did anyone really care when Huk went from Liquid to EG? Or MC from oGs to SK?"
I am pretty sure both spawned quite massive topics.
|
I like your argument, but I think the uniform ranking system should mimic that of chess. The USCF and FIDE ranking system has been around for quite some time and is quite efficient. It also gives a more reliable way to seed people for code S than the simple "pick the guys you like" method currently used. Its mathematically more rigorous too, perhaps it just needs to have a map modifier in the calculation...
|
On April 11 2012 01:47 Djin)ftw( wrote:I dont agree and think the whole argument is rather stupid to be honest. a) Tennis is also a team sport (Fed Cup, tennis clubs form teams who compete with other, at least in Germany on an amateur level). b) Realizing that professional SC2 and Tennis have much in common is just stating the obvious. I mean, if you had abstracted from Tennis and included table tennis, badminton or even chess I wouldn't say anything, but seriously: realizing that in both games 1v1 is the most popular mode is like... woho. What comes next, we should also abandon 2v2 because people like to play/watch 1v1 more? c) If there are no teams, please tell me, how exactly players are supposed to live on pro gaming? Who is going to pay for everything, food, shelter, equipment, tourney fees.... ? Afaik there is no international E-sports federation with a budget of $50000000 gained from tax money/sponsors that is distributed to national federations who themselves pay the players. d) If you honestly think that team leagues are irrelevant, I dont know what to say. Even if it was possible for a player to live on pro gaming through individual sponsorship/national funding, the success of team sports like soccer, basketball........ compared to (largely) individual sports like Tennis/Table Tennis/Boxing should convince you that it is probably a good idea to have teams competing with each other in some sort of league. In Germany public interest in Tennis decreased rapidly after the retirement of Stefanie Graf, Boris Becker and Michael Stich. Teams however can exist forever
1)Tennis is not a team sport. Taking a bunch of players from the same country and having them play against a bunch of players from another country doesn't make it a team sport. It's just taking a bunch of 1v1 matches and applying some arbitrary meaning to them as a group. SC2 team leagues are the same exact way. In fact, a "team" in SC2 is really nothing more than a bunch of players who share the same sponsors/managers and have each other as primary practice partners. I'm ignoring doubles/2v2, 3v3, 4v4 for this because it's pretty obvious they're not relevant to the conversation.
2)Maybe it is, but you're just shitting on the OP for the sake of shitting on him at this point IMO.
3)Um, the same exact way they currently are? Having a team obviously makes handling all those things much easier, but they are by no means a necessity. If they had to, the players could do all of that stuff themselves.
4)Again, taking a bunch of players and making them play against another bunch of players and arbitrarily calling that set of games a "team match" doesn't make it a team sport. If you want that illusion, then that's fine. Personally, I don't care much for team leagues, but I understand that a lot of people do, so they should keep them. However, trying to use them as an argument than an obviously individual sport is actually a team sport is absurd.
|
very good points in the OP, but i feel like we're already at the point you speak of for the future as far as individual leagues are concerned.
maybe the role of teams will increase when there are more offline team league events other than GSTL...
a lot of the online team leagues are great for exposing us to the team and the players' play styles, but you don't get the same sense of teammate interaction that you see in the Team Liquid pictures and interviews, or between EG players at the Lair, or between KR teams in the GSTL
i wanted to say something about hopefully in SC2 teams focus more on building their team franchise with their star players but that's already happening in some degree, but hopefully that'll grow further once the scene and games stabilize to a point where a player can get signed for more than just 1 year and hope to renew (this might require the emergence of more major team events, since some players on teams won't get any screen time in individual leagues for various reasons like funding or being a b-teamer)
Did anyone really care when Huk went from Liquid to EG? Or MC from oGs to SK?
I cared a lot more about Huk going from Liquid to EG because Liquid is a team that really builds their players as part of the franchise. The rivalry between Liquid and EG was embodied in Huk vs Idra, and that was a great hook to the old tourneys where they competed against each other, but it all went away when Huk got signed (hell, EG even used it to promo Huk's acquisition, and smartly so).
I didn't care as much for MC going from oGs to SK since at that point i had seen enough Korean teams and players splitting for various reasons, but i was still a little sad.
|
starcraft has too much variance at the levels below tier-1 compared to tennis, and too little infrastructure for the non-best players to have successful showings in tournaments. without a steady path to go from amateur to professional (given you develop the skill), the game will become stagnant and die. the team atmosphere helps buffer that -- lesser players get an opportunity to contribute, make names for themselves, etc.
also with 100 entities to cheer for (players), fans choose a few of their favorites and we're split among several. with a team league, there's something like 10. this makes more fans for fewer entities and does a lot better job at concentrating the fanbase and generating interest in watching matches, buying merchandise, etc.
|
I really like the way you compare SC2 to tennis, but as a lot of people have said before me is the team leagues. They are extremely good for entertainement and for creating storylines.
Imo, a combination is the best solution ^^
|
Actually the tennis players do make pre-game interviews, I've seen numerous times especially in the grand finals where both players are interviewed very briefly about what they think about the match and their opponent, usually in a couple sentences at most.
Anyway, I agree both sports have similarities. However, I don't believe SC2 really will grow as much as people think it will. For one thing only one game has succeded in gaining attention beyond that game's fans and that is Brood War. And as most of us know, BW isn't what it used to be. One of the main leagues was disbanded and viewership numbers and the general attention it draws is apparently lesser than say, pre-2010? Correct me if I'm wrong about this but if I remember right after the Saviour match-fixing incident, I heard that the BW in Korea has lost substantial blood. Beyond that, I think with the way LoL keeps getting attention (which is funny since that's very easy when the game instantly connects to streams) it might be tougher to keep SC2 grow. It's true that there are still two expansions to come but then again, one day SC3 or perhaps somehow another super good RTS (or maybe another MOBA game?) will come and very likely could dethrone SC2 or at least hurt its popularity.
My main point is that there is no Tennis 2 that comes every 10 years. Nor there is a company that owns the right to the tennis as a game and sport. I believe these two are huge obstacles that get in the way of SC2's growth. With the level of control Blizzard wants to exert over Starcraft 2, I'm not sure how much it will continue growing. Furthermore, Wings of Liberty is a great game but it needs a lot of work, for example in my opinion it is quite boring to watch a Zerg player roll over a Protoss due to being 40-80 supply up, because if the Zerg player knows his thing, he'll be up that much supply and there isn't much what Protoss can do besides forcefielding very well. I hope HOTS can bring some excitement and tension to the game. The Wings of Liberty wasn't interesting in some aspects imo, there are too many simple 1-a units and not many units that specifically shine with good control.
|
Great post agree with it a lot!
|
Great write-up OP.
Although it must really stink when 90% of your readers completely and hopelessly miss the entire point you are making. Ex: "StarCraft can't be Tennis because Tennis is boring and you use a racket not a keyboard, derp-derp." Seriously, I got dumber reading 8 pages of comments from people who probably didn't even read the post.
I think the structure of SC2 and Tennis is a GREAT comparison. Obviously it's not a perfect side-by-side comparison, it's not supposed to be, it's a example of how an existing format could be applied to our great esport.
Your are right. Both Tennis and SC2 are individual sports. People on this board are getting hung up on the team aspect. Yes, SC2 needs teams to train, take care of money, get sponsors, provide housing, and what-not, but the appeal for (most) fans is not seeing which team did best in the GSL, it's who won. Fans follow players from multiple teams just like Tennis fans follow players from multiple countries. The Team aspect of SC2 is an extra addition that gives fans even more to get into, but you are correct, the main draw is the individual players. Teams are a bonus and one of the great things that makes SC unique.
I think have "Grand Slam" tournaments is a great idea. A ranking system along side that would be very difficult, but not impossible. Tennis has the advantage of being hundreds of years old and the tournaments they have now are an age-old tradition, but that's what SC2 should strive for; a consistent SC2 YEAR/SEASON, with major tourneys spread out with consideration for each other and the attending players. That's going to be hard because each SC2 tournament want to be Wimbledon, the biggest tourney of the year. And also each tourney has the right to run their own format, while the Grand Slams are all 2-weeks of best of 5 set. It would be nice if the big SC2 tourneys came up with an elimination format similar to each other. But I guess differences between tourneys add to their individual charm.
Other SC2 and Tennis comparisons (jokes):
Cannon rush/six-pool = drop shots
1 base all-in = Serve and volley
Map pool = Court surface type
Team tourneys = Davis Cup (I think someone mentioned that already)
Storm/Fungal/EMP = Overhead Smash
Supply block = Double Fault
Rage Quit = Racket Smash
:D
|
Individual players don't have the cache to recruit their own sponsors and hire their own coaches the way tennis players do. Have to rely on teams right now.
|
I agree with the general idea, even if a couple of your remarks (huk to EG, no big deal) were a little inflamitory.
Although I hope it's not the future, I want SC2 to become NFL big, not tennis popular.
|
On April 11 2012 04:14 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
I agree with the general idea, even if a couple of your remarks (huk to EG, no big deal) were a little inflamitory.
Although I hope it's not the future, I want SC2 to become NFL big, not tennis popular.
You have to learn to crawl before you can walk. I'll be happy when SC2 is on par with the popularity of darts.
|
Very well thought out arguement and I compeletely agree, especially with the sponsorship of individuals not teams. I'm not really sure how anyone can call this a "bad" idea, to be honest, the tennis model has proved itself through... well, the fact that we all know OF tennis and can watch it and it is a very successful sport. I honestly believe anyone putting ideas against this hasn't fully considered their arguement.
And to all the people who "cared" when Huk went from Liquid to EG... Get a life. You know that deep down you don't really give a fuck, just want something to speak about. I too enjoyed the rivalry, however the OP promoted that in his tennis model anyway.
My trouble with team funding is that, unfortunately, like in tennis, EG.Strifecrow never achieved, and (sadly) will probably never achieve anywhere near as much success as Idra or Huk, yet was still part of the team under the same sponsorship. IMO that's not right, as results, when all is said and done, are what a >player< can base himself/herself on, and the awesome sponsorship was kinda undeserved, as Strifecrow never produced the results. Just using him as an example, of course, he is now out of EG (ages ago as I'm sure you all know), and I would be so bold as to suppose his lack of success contributed. Peace though, and GL in future Strife
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I've always wondered why people don't compare SC2 to tennis in general, it always felt to me like they have a lot in common when it comes to organization. I don't know a ton about tennis though so thanks for sharing and going through it.
I'm not entirely sure I agree about the individual stars vs teams aspect though. In BW there is a large contingent of fans who grow up learning teams, and follow players through those teams, rather than individuals. HotBid as an example lived and died by CJ, so much so that when the savior scandal happened it nearly stopped him from watching BW ever again.
I think the same could happen in SC2 with sufficient support of team leagues, even looking at when HuK moved to EG not all of his fans followed him. While it will never be a pure team event, it's definitely much more of a team activity than something like tennis or golf.
|
That's going to be hard because each SC2 tournament want to be Wimbledon, the biggest tourney of the year.
hopefully Blizzard's World Championships will help dispel some of that as it seems they will be giving out regional seeds to other major tournament organizers to have as part of their prize pools, so that way, all the major tourneys will all help lead into the World Championships in additional to Blizzard's national and regional qualifiers.
Other SC2 and Tennis comparisons (jokes):
Cannon rush/six-pool = drop shots
1 base all-in = Serve and volley
Map pool = Court surface type
Team tourneys = Davis Cup (I think someone mentioned that already)
Storm/Fungal/EMP = Overhead Smash
Supply block = Double Fault
Rage Quit = Racket Smash
well played sir
|
Did I overread the part where you explain WHY Sc2 should be like tennis?
The reason why the argument in the OP is very weak is because it completely disregards the history of e-sports. Sure you can compare Sc2 as an individual sport to tennis as an individual sport but what's the point? To think of opportunities to grow Sc2 as an e-sport you should look at Starcraft 2 where it is now and where it could be. For example teams are an important part of the puzzle right now. Traditional fans have grown attached to them and that's not a bad thing. So there is no reason to not have team leagues. If you look at Sc2's predecessors Sc1 and Wc3 they both have/had high profile team leagues that were surrounded with a lot of hype.
|
On April 10 2012 23:47 Mattchew wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 23:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:As both a tennis instructor and a StarCraft player, I really do see a lot of similarities between the games/ sports, and I think tennis is the most relatable traditional sport to StarCraft. Nice job with the explanation, OP As an ex-player (trained with one of the guys on your top earners list ) I completely agree. I would love for a tournament to implement a 2 week offline tournament like one of the Tennis majors.
I dont see that happening for a very long time. The #1 thing teams struggle with is getting enough sponsors so they can afford to send their players to a 3 day even. You now want to increase the cost of board by 4.5 as much....unless the event is wulling to pay for players rooms i dont see it happening this decade
|
I hope that the best and most consistant players of sc2 rise to the top. I hope 6/8 players of every tournament top 8 are the same names every month or whatever. Those people should get all of the "riches and glory" and all of the "good" players should be forced to best those players to get money/attention. I like that model.
If this so called "broodwar apocolypse" happens and all these sc1 pros dominate sc2 and foreigners go extinct from top end tournaments, then so be it! It will happen for an obvious reason, if it happens. All of the players that are doing "ok" right now, I hope they get pushed out of the game if they dont keep up in skill.
|
Random tennis question but do ATP rankings give seedings for all Majors (e.g. Wimbledon / US Open) or are there seperate qualis? Also think that its a pretty cool analogy.
|
On April 10 2012 09:07 YMCApylons wrote:
How is it that the actual athlete looks like the bigger nerd here?
"Fucking Boxer!" or "Only in tennis..." ?
|
Great post with specific and well thought insight.
|
On April 11 2012 07:11 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Random tennis question but do ATP rankings give seedings for all Majors (e.g. Wimbledon / US Open) or are there seperate qualis? Also think that its a pretty cool analogy.
I think Grand Slams are all 128 player single elimination brackets with the top 32 on ATP points seeded into the tournament (skipping those that cancel their attendance). Winning a grand slam gets you 2000 points, which is enough to maintain your spot in the top-32 for the next 12 months, and thus be seeded for all other grand slams, including the next version of the grand slam you won. The other 96 spots are part qualifier, part at the tournaments discretion.
I think there's obvious benefits to this, if all 'major' tournaments in the SC2 scene applied a similar system. Seeding a GSL winner into all foreign tournaments, seeding a big foreign tournament winner into code S: It would make the scene more consistent are allow for better storylines to develop. It would ofc require tournaments to get rid of the current bogus group phases and adopt brackets where all players have to win an equal amount of rounds to win a tournament.
It wouldn't even have to apply scene wide, you obviously can't include things like invitationals, but that's where tournaments could use their own discretion in choosing who to invite.
|
As others have said, I agree with a lot of what you say except the team issue. Players do not become good in SC2 without teammates to hone their skills with.
|
Tennis evolved the way it did because of the nature of the game. Forcing Starcraft 2 to evolve the way tennis evolved can't be good in the long run. Just let things run their course, everything will work out for the best.
|
I would say your comparison of the importance of the individual player is spot on and is what makes RTS pro-gaming and tennis comparable.
Your suggestions revolving around this to improve the scene are sound.
When it comes to your perspective of team league I fully reject your assertions.
The importance of teams come from
A) Collection of star players
B) Greater exposure to lesser know players who excel in the playing format where you can't prepare for any opponent beyond your first.
Teams in rts pro-gaming is what makes it uniquiely pro-gaming and not tennis.
All of your suggestions to revamp the structure and attitude towards team building are terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
