No Starcraft 2 at MLG Columbus (so far) - Page 53

On August 10 2013 09:13 Luppy1 wrote:


My point really is that a game doesnt become more successful over a non free to play game simply because it's free. To be able to attract millions of players to a game simply means the developers are at least doing some things right with regards to the design.

On August 10 2013 09:19 MVega wrote:


Mobas are addictive casual fun. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game with a fairly high skill ceiling and can be stressful. Dota and LoL are also free and thus more accessible than StarCraft is. Of course they're going to have more players and be more popular.

On August 10 2013 09:38 Luppy1 wrote:


What you're saying is not really conclusive. A free game that is crap will still be unable to retain its players. If the devs of the other games are not doing things right to begin with, their games wouldnt be nearly as successful. Attributing these games' success entirely to accessibility + free + casual is just unfair.

Besides, the cost of getting WoL + HotS is so low as compared to getting subbed to WoW for just 1 year. If you look at the number of subs for WoW, it's evident that plenty of people are willing to pay money for games. So, please don't make it sound like having to pay for SC2 creates such a huge barrier, because if purchasing the game is worth it in the first place people will still do it.

On August 11 2013 00:18 Cattlecruiser wrote:
There are many more people that play golf than actually play football.
It is physically more demanding to play football compared to golf, just like it is physically draining to play sc2 compared to playing almost any other game. It is to the point where many can't sustain high performance for over a long career.
However, the NFL is a bigger entity than the PGA.
More people spend money on football apparel, tickets, and merchandise. Sc2 sustains a huge professional scene compared to its player base, because more Sc2 player/fans are willing to dish out large bills for the "top" computer equipment and gear.

I haven't really played very much of HoTS since my wrists started to hurt, but I still view WCS as regularly as I can. I still dish out large sums to upgrade my computer and when I do I buy from companies that support my favorite player/teams.
I don't think sc2 needs to change as a game to attract more fan base EXCEPT for the B.NET UI. If the content keeps evolving and the fan base continues to promote the game, sc2 will be fine for years to come.
The only thing that is really needed is for Blizzard to realize what the industry needs them to be (NFL shield rather than NBA hegemony).

On August 10 2013 09:19 MVega wrote:


Mobas are addictive casual fun. StarCraft 2 is a strategy game with a fairly high skill ceiling and can be stressful. Dota and LoL are also free and thus more accessible than StarCraft is. Of course they're going to have more players and be more popular.

On August 12 2013 00:47 mothergoose729 wrote:
I don't understand. I was at MLG Anaheim. Most of the seats where filled all day saturday. Sunday you had to show up at 10 sharp to get a seat. During the finals, you couldn't have fit another human being in the sc2 section if you tried. I think the LoL section was a tad larger, they did have a little bigger area, but if so not by a lot. We were definitively bigger than CoD.

MLG you are making a mistake. Sundance talk some sense into your partners, because I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot hear, not to mention really letting down us fans of starcraft and our pros in the NA scene.

On August 12 2013 03:03 Targe wrote:


Implying that Starcraft's skill ceiling is higher than dota and lol and that both dota and lol aren't stressful.

On August 12 2013 03:03 Targe wrote:


Implying that Starcraft's skill ceiling is higher than dota and lol and that both dota and lol aren't stressful.

On August 12 2013 05:01 MVega wrote:


I don't have to imply it, I'll outright say it. It's nearly impossible to deny that an RTS game like StarCraft has a higher skill ceiling than mobas. Just by the nature of controlling multiple things at the same time and microing and macroing versus controlling one unit. The challenge in mobas is team coordination.

There are a few genres with higher skill ceilings than mobas, and that's not me talking any shit about mobas. It's not shameful that they have a much lower skill ceiling, that's part of their appeal to the casual audience, that's a huge part of why they're so popular and so easy to get into.

On August 12 2013 04:48 dcemuser wrote:

Starcraft's skill ceiling is vastly higher than DotA/LoL. There's no arguing that.

It's not even possible to get remotely within reach of Starcraft's skill ceiling though, so it is sort of a moot point. Ignoring all strategy, Starcraft's raw mechanical skill ceiling is faster than any human could ever move their hands and fingers. In pure theorycrafting, pure Marine/Medievac play hard counters Muta/Ling/Bane, but in reality that is almost never true (except at like the height of MKP or other micro-based Terrans).

I find that the skill ceiling argument is overused without considering the EFFECT of higher skill. For example, SC2's skill ceiling is stupidly high, but does it actually matter? That is, does skill in the game actually produce the better player as the winner often enough?

That is a factor that you have to consider side by side with skill ceiling - the effect that rising skill actually has on the game.

On August 12 2013 05:30 Targe wrote:




I'm not going to get into an argument because one of us will certainly get warned/banned but I'm just going to leave it that I beieve both DotA and SC2 have similar skill ceilings.

On August 12 2013 05:11 chatuka wrote:
arguments can be made for the superior chararcteristics of MOBA games compared to SC or RTS games. I would yet make that assertion about the superiority of MOBA until Blizzard addresses problems SC clearly possesses. Heck SC could one day even become a 4 vs 4 game if the right minds worked to create it. THat's called evolution and having a vision for the sport.

THat vision is what leads a sports league to newer heights. FOr example Baseball needs drastic changes to their rules. Replays, draft rules, free agent rules, salary cap, Steroids, the rules on how far a fence can be from the diamond. Basketball needs to address changes to that will keep the sport interesting. ( if i was the owner of an MLB team, there would be no fences, now that's is interesting baseball)

every sport needs to evolve. Tennis should be multi-player, but how are organizer going to create that infrastructure of team tennis of like a 5 vs 5? 4 vs 4? Scheduling overkill that retires a great player like Federer pre-maturely. Fans want to see A legend like Federer, and now he can't be at his prime anymore due to the hellacious schedule of the ATP. he's only 32

Hockey and soccer need more scoring IMO. that will get flack from the purists, but the game isn't about the purists. It's about the casual fan. And casual fans like scoring. Make the goal posts bigger, erase the off-side trap, would revolutionize the game. Soccer also has scheduling issues for their stars(stars decline rapidly) but the Champions League was a GREAT idea. Perhaps a super league of only the best teams in the world can play regular season games instead of round robin tournaments that lead into a champions league tournament.

Basketball could probably use a 4 point line which would drastically change the game of basketball. B-ball purists will call me an idiot. But purists hated the 3 point line and still do. Guess how more interesting the sport became because of the 3 point line? Purists are needed of course, but they can certainly make a sport irrelevant and aging if no new concepts are brought into the sport.


Football is at the apex of sport. Perhaps draft changes where the worst team gets two first rounders. the second worst team gets the 3rd and 4th pick and so on. Reduce the violence of the sport. Increase the salary cap. Make the sport international, which will be difficult.

On August 12 2013 05:32 chatuka wrote:

it doesn't really matter who game requires more skill. The question is, if both games require simlilar skill ceilings why are players from MOBA never good enough to compete in Starcraft? Where the inverse is probably true. Jaedong could probably be a world class Dota player if he wanted to be. But players from china and Na'vi and Alliance could never become great Starcraft players.