On September 23 2013 16:25 F.O.X wrote: If Blizzard integrated ladders into the WCS format it could also serve to alleviate the issues with bar-coded players.
For example suppose Blizzard included a rule that all WCS competing players had to be minimum of GM on the account they are playing on in the tournament in the same region ( ie. if Jaedong was playing WCS AM he would need GM on AM ladder) - and that the account name would be the same name that appeared on all official communications/brackets/seedings/casting -> Then players would kind of have to play under their named account because otherwise they would be facing a lot of confusion in reading brackets, upsetting their sponsors and also not getting as much exposure ( assuming Blizzard said refer to them as bar-code if that's their name).
Also using just the GM ladder or adding a new teir ( ie. Qualifier tier -> top 1% of masters + GM or something) would also increase its significance as players are required to regularly keep up their ranks
The reasons players play on barcode is so that their match history and practice can't be traced. Barcodes are legitimate defense against bnet
On September 24 2013 01:21 Xeris wrote: In SC2 there are so many different organizations which don't share the same goals or interests, are competing with each other to capture the most viewership. So what incentive would MLG for example have, in hiring a promoter to create some star players who will then go play in NASL and Dreamhack and IEM and give them higher viewership.
this is precisely why KESPA ruled with an iron fist. and its why guys like Vince Mcmahon and Don King are very protective of the stars they create.
based on your comments i'd say Blizzard is the only common denominator here. Blizzard benefits when any player any where becomes an "sc2 esports star".
As talented as the upper managements guys at Blizzard are... in so many different fields.. one thing Blizzard fails in.. is live event promotion... (electrical engineers can only do so much)
Blizzcon is a pedestrian affair. and really .. i guess it has to be. but, the 2012 Battle.Net World Championship didn't have to be held back by the rest of Blizzard's products and goals.
This is how you promote an event.
now what would you rather go to? the 2012 BNet championships.. or to see the UFC Welterweight Title fight? This fight drew $13 million in tickets sales alone. Not including Pay-Per-View or any other revenue. But, for a mega corporation like ATVI... its a drop in the bucket. So there is the rub. ATVI is a long way off from ever taking eSports seriously.
Georges St. Pierre is Boring with a capital "B". But, the UFC has turned him into their biggest draw.
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
First of all I don't think BW is perfect. In fact its nowhere near perfect. But the game is good example of how RTS should be. People are not nostalgic, they're just sad that good qualities of BW haven't been preserved in SC2 and got thrown out of the window. And good qualities are not 12 unit selection or clumsy pathfinding. Its more of how units, compositions and counters were designed.
And pls stop speaking bull**** about the community's opinion. You look like a douche. Speak for yourself and your opinion only.
On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
that is what you need a promoter for. to tell people what they want. and tell them who the best is... and do it with authority and ego.
for those that oppose your view you create an audience of people who "love to hate you".
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
First of all I don't think BW is perfect. In fact its nowhere near perfect. But the game is good example of how RTS should be. People are not nostalgic, they're just sad that good qualities of BW haven't been preserved in SC2 and got thrown out of the window. And good qualities are not 12 unit selection or clumsy pathfinding. Its more of how units, compositions and counters were designed.
And pls stop speaking bull**** about the community's opinion. You look like a douche. Speak for yourself and your opinion only.
I am talking about my observations of the community and my impressions of why people are so conflicted about SC2. I am sorry you are insulted or upset by them, but they are just my opinions and I wouldn't take them to seriously. And some people are totally nostalgic for BW. They are high on it and it clouds every discussion about the game. Its just the way SC2 is and people will keep having these discussions. Normally they will pop up during the off season when there isn't much else to discuss.
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
First of all I don't think BW is perfect. In fact its nowhere near perfect. But the game is good example of how RTS should be. People are not nostalgic, they're just sad that good qualities of BW haven't been preserved in SC2 and got thrown out of the window. And good qualities are not 12 unit selection or clumsy pathfinding. Its more of how units, compositions and counters were designed.
And pls stop speaking bull**** about the community's opinion. You look like a douche. Speak for yourself and your opinion only.
I am talking about my observations of the community and my impressions of why people are so conflicted about SC2. I am sorry you are insulted or upset by them, but they are just my opinions and I wouldn't take them to seriously. And some people are totally nostalgic for BW. They are high on it and it clouds every discussion about the game. Its just the way SC2 is and people will keep having these discussions. Normally they will pop up during the off season when there isn't much else to discuss.
Saying that community is mindlessly in obsession with bw is a little too overboard. Its flamy and irritating. Perhaps, there are some bandwagon jumpers who'll hate sc2 for the sake of hating it, but I believe most people express honest well thought opinions about sc2 and bw.
I definitely agree with the casual part. I'm sure someone has said this already, but Brood War had both a cutthroat competitive feature with iCCup and what not. However, the casual scene and UMS games were so much fun. Customs like fastest map ever, BGH, crazier BGH varients, a whole bunch of maps where I don't remember but you spawned units and just fought each other and leveled etc etc.
That made BW really fun for casuals and retained all the competitiveness for those seeking it out.
Strategy games are losing out to real world simulations, since graphics are constantly improving, but it's still a very big market. Most people don't want to spend all their free time in the visceral, ultra violent Call of Duty world and would be more comfortable with less intense games that are about strategic decision making. SC2 is actually too fast paced for casual players (or at least, there are no slow paced, social ways to play the game, which most people enjoy). My brother, for instance, plays games like civilization, settlers, wc3, total war, axis & allies almost exclusively, so you'd think he'd enjoy sc2, but the only thing he will play in SC2 is the risk ums. It's not sensible as a game developer to create a major title that is only suitable for one audience (dedicated RTS fans), you have to cast a wider net. Blizzard obviously failed by making 1vs1 the focus of multiplayer imo.
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
First of all I don't think BW is perfect. In fact its nowhere near perfect. But the game is good example of how RTS should be. People are not nostalgic, they're just sad that good qualities of BW haven't been preserved in SC2 and got thrown out of the window. And good qualities are not 12 unit selection or clumsy pathfinding. Its more of how units, compositions and counters were designed.
And pls stop speaking bull**** about the community's opinion. You look like a douche. Speak for yourself and your opinion only.
I am talking about my observations of the community and my impressions of why people are so conflicted about SC2. I am sorry you are insulted or upset by them, but they are just my opinions and I wouldn't take them to seriously. And some people are totally nostalgic for BW. They are high on it and it clouds every discussion about the game. Its just the way SC2 is and people will keep having these discussions. Normally they will pop up during the off season when there isn't much else to discuss.
Saying that community is mindlessly in obsession with bw is a little too overboard. Its flamy and irritating. Perhaps, there are some bandwagon jumpers who'll hate sc2 for the sake of hating it, but I believe most people express honest well thought opinions about sc2 and bw.
I didn't say that at all, unless you add a lot of words to my post. I said that a lot of people see "BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games." I didn't say it was mindless or obsessive, only that it was used to argue from a place of authority. It is a way to add strength to an argument that may not be warranted. It uses the idea of BW as a "superior" RTS game to strengthen arguments without having to truly argue the points.
And there are a lot of people who bandwagon on the SC2 hate wagon. We can't celebrate the retirement of a player without the thread becoming side tracked with the discussion that SC2 caused them to retire. No player can give an interview about the meta game or discussion the state of the game without the pending death of SC2 being brought into the subject. Its what people do when there is nothing to watch and no pending big event.
Bring the excitement of warcraft III daily tournaments to sc2! Those thing forced players to get in and play and it was pretty funny to be honest.
Starcraft is dying not because the lack of tournaments or the WCS system but the inability from blizzard to interact with the community in the way the community wants (casual tournaments, be able to win portraits or stuff that really show how "good" you are). Have 100 Wins with terran means nothing... But if you win like 100 matches in a tournament (like the wc3 ones) it would say something about who you actually are.
The chat system has always been a disaster so you always feel "lonely" in the game.
I think StarCraft 2 is very exciting to watch. I don't think it's a worse game than Brood War, like other people seem to. It emphasizes different things... things that are less obvious to casual viewers but more obvious to people who have been playing it for a while.
In Brood War, a lot of the fun was watching the actual battles. In SC2 I enjoy the mind games, the scouting, the reacting, and on occasion, some sick sick sick HerO PartinG Jaedong Life MKP micro. For the more casual viewer to understand some of these things, the casters need to do a better job explaining why the players are doing what they're doing (for example, Terran builds an engineering bay because he sees that the 3rd pylon for the Protoss is delayed). John Madden has gotten very far in his career saying very very basic things and I think the SC2 casters could learn a thing or two from him (even if sometimes they sound super obvious and stupid).
I think the point about content overload is valid - I would appreciate WCS a little bit more if it wasn't on ALL THE TIME (literally, there's always something WCS related on when I get on TL. GSL used to be special for me - if a player I liked was playing I'd sometimes get up early to watch. Now it's hard to even keep track of results with so many events going on all being called WCS. If you have WCS a couple of times a year and leave the rest of the year to other tournament organizers (DreamHack, RedBull, etc.) it gives more meaning to them. For example, Tennis has a few Grand Slams a year.. but the rest of the year is all minor tourmanets. Could you imagine if Wimbeldon was on anytime you turned your TV on? It wouldn't be as special.
Maybe the system should be more like conventional sports... with a regular season schedule, points etc. and then playoffs.
Lastly, enough with the whole SC2 is dying crap. We know viewership numbers are not as good as we like but the more negative people are about it the worse it's going to get. I love watching SC2 and I will keep doing it. Instead of saying SC2 is dying, encourage your friends to watch and teach some noobs about it! We are the ones that have to support the community.. we ARE the community! And as long as there is demand for people to play SC2 professionally, SC2 will be a successful eSPORT!
On September 21 2013 06:21 Garmer wrote: let this game die, is beyond repair already
I wish we could all give another game a try, but sadly RTS are too few, and we are a starcraft / warcraft scene anyway, not a RTS scene. =/
it is still probably the best current game out there yes
It's kind of s strange dichotomy, it is the best RTS out there, yet not quite good enough. Whether that speaks more to the looming specter of BW or the disintegrating genre of RTS is hard to say.
Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
First of all I don't think BW is perfect. In fact its nowhere near perfect. But the game is good example of how RTS should be. People are not nostalgic, they're just sad that good qualities of BW haven't been preserved in SC2 and got thrown out of the window. And good qualities are not 12 unit selection or clumsy pathfinding. Its more of how units, compositions and counters were designed.
And pls stop speaking bull**** about the community's opinion. You look like a douche. Speak for yourself and your opinion only.
I am talking about my observations of the community and my impressions of why people are so conflicted about SC2. I am sorry you are insulted or upset by them, but they are just my opinions and I wouldn't take them to seriously. And some people are totally nostalgic for BW. They are high on it and it clouds every discussion about the game. Its just the way SC2 is and people will keep having these discussions. Normally they will pop up during the off season when there isn't much else to discuss.
Saying that community is mindlessly in obsession with bw is a little too overboard. Its flamy and irritating. Perhaps, there are some bandwagon jumpers who'll hate sc2 for the sake of hating it, but I believe most people express honest well thought opinions about sc2 and bw.
I didn't say that at all, unless you add a lot of words to my post. I said that a lot of people see "BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games." I didn't say it was mindless or obsessive, only that it was used to argue from a place of authority. It is a way to add strength to an argument that may not be warranted. It uses the idea of BW as a "superior" RTS game to strengthen arguments without having to truly argue the points.
And there are a lot of people who bandwagon on the SC2 hate wagon. We can't celebrate the retirement of a player without the thread becoming side tracked with the discussion that SC2 caused them to retire. No player can give an interview about the meta game or discussion the state of the game without the pending death of SC2 being brought into the subject. Its what people do when there is nothing to watch and no pending big event.
Saying it's only an opinion or an observation doesn't actually make it less douchey or obnoxious, just an fyi. BW is a gold standard of comparison for every RTS that has been made this side of year 2k, obviously the relationship with its sequel is going to be somewhat complex.
Thing is, pretend BW was never made, pretend it was not actually BW but CC1 or Red Alert or something that was the measuring stick for an RTS, and we still arrive at the same conclusion. SC2 has flaws. Some of them minor, some of them not so minor. Some of them are affecting the game in a way that is making it less fun to watch and play, and there exists a host of precedents of how to do things differently, and mostly better. The flaws of the game exist independently of the BW legacy, and would have caused the same debates regardless.
The issue is not that the game is not enough like BW, it's that the game simply is not good enough on its own. I, we, expect more from a company like Blizzard, especially when they have an absolutely unprecedented platform to build from in BW. This mantra that people have stuck to like a broken record of how BW fans or people who are unhappy with SC2 are living in the past or using rose-coloured glasses is becoming tiresome. It's not about BW, it's about SC2, it just so happens that BW is the only accurate point of comparison we have, because it had a number of rather unique qualities that made it immensely enjoyable to watch and play. For someone who does not want words put in his mouth, you seem awfully eager to portray anyone who is unhappy about the current state and design of SC2 as someone who just wants a re-skin of BW.
It may very well be that making core SC2 gameplay more like BW is not the right solution, but that should not in any way discourage Blizzard or the community from approaching the concept of drastic changes to core gameplay as something that may be necessary. What nature that will take is another matter entirely. TDLR: SC2 could and should be better than it currently is, regardless of the looming spectre of BW.
Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
i think esports shouldnt be mainstream and wish every other game dies on a competitive level but BW so it can become a classic game and join the ranks of chess, go etc
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
On September 24 2013 02:05 Plansix wrote: Its more that people don't know what they want. People see BW as this abstract concept of perfection in RTS games(for a lot of people who didn't play BW on a high level), but don't really take into account modern games or if what made it great would be commercially viable. Without the legacy of BW, a game with similar mechanics would be labeled as dated and poorly programmed and may never gain a foothold in the market. People have tried a thousand formulas for success in RTS games and the audience is divided on what they want. People want stability, yet also don't want the game to be stale. They want exciting early games and harassment, but hate it when you can't take third base with ease. At the end of the day, there is no book of best practices for an RTS game and the community its sort of wishy washy on what would make the best game.
I would even go further. If BW's pathing was used today by a indie company. Said company would NEVER EVER get any public no matter how good the rest of the gameplay is.
On September 24 2013 04:12 Wertheron wrote: Love the current "solutions for sc2" era. 90% of these threads is "BW is better, make SC2 like BW and you'll have a super-mega esport scene". Weird, because i can't remember to have seen a big esport scene on BW outisde Korea. And BW is no more play today outside Korea than a Age of Empires II or other classic. I know that SC2 have some problems, but we can't say that BW was always in a perfect situation outside Korea, and that SC1 is the solution.
Then again, BW didn't have Blizzard paying majority of the tournament prices.
OR the streaming luxury.
BW had its backing companies brainwashed kids on TV with short skirts and promises of glory. Emphasis on : TV.
EPT
