StarCraft 2: What's The Problem - Page 28

On September 21 2013 03:40 Xeris wrote:
In Brood War, actual battles are much more exciting, and I feel as if these are the lynchpin of the viewer experience. Seeing an intensely micro'd battle, or a player with a smaller force taking down a player with a bigger force because of superior unit control and micro is exciting. Knowing that Brood War is more difficult to execute gives the viewer more appreciation for incredible marine splits, storms, and multi-tasking in battle. It is easy to see the impact of the player directly on the battlefield because you know that every action is manually performed by the user, while StarCraft 2's battles are essentially simulations: there is comparatively little the player can do to impact the outcome of a battle in StarCraft 2.

I don't really see how this problem can be fixed since it is part of the game design.

On September 26 2013 13:26 TaishiCi wrote:
Another thread blaming it on the Koreans being too good...

The "local" support, "regional" WCS, and too "personality" driven are just different ways to complain about Koreans.

.

On September 26 2013 15:31 m0nt wrote:
I think the problem is that the game is very frustrating and not rewarding.

On September 26 2013 14:39 FXOBoSs wrote:
Great post, well written.

I honestly believe that this has so much to do with blizzard there is almost nothing that any of us ex or current sc2 fans can do.

Blizzard has always made good games. But they haven't exactly had that much competition. They have always been a brand that you would trust and purchase.
Tie a few floppy games (like D3) against the name and add in super aggressive competition (valve and riot) and you have something Blizzard has never seen before and doesn't know how to/doesn't want to handle it correctly. Of course with some people shuffling and a lot of hard work they can get things back to where they should be.

I think its evident that with 2 e-sports directors in 2 years there is something difficult internally that needs dealing with. I'd say that once that is dealt with the e-sports side of blizzard will start to kick off with a huge financial backing.

In the meantime as every day goes by they are losing ground on the popularity front.

I think the WCS non regionalised tournament damage is done. I don't think its reversible at this stage. The only way to get some sort of regional incentive would be to add another lower tier of tournament which qualifies you to qualify for challenger league. However this also would probably drop numbers as its an excruciating task for players to even prepare to qualify for challenger league.

Overall in my personal opinion a lack of regional leagues from the beginning of the growth is what is hurting sc2 now. Too many giant lan parties and not enough stability. Its great to travel every weekend and meet your mates and play some sc2 in a tournament but things like that are not destined to last. NASL's original vision was right in my opinion but I think that the patience just wasn't there.

Anyway thats my rant on the topic.

Thanks again for a great post xeris.

On September 21 2013 03:40 Xeris wrote:
This article examines some of the problems of StarCraft 2, and suggests a few fixes or possible solutions. These are just my thoughts; they could be right or wrong. There has been a lot of discussion about the decline of StarCraft 2. Some people have a doom and gloom attitude and say the game is dying, others point to increased viewer numbers of major events compared to a year ago and say, "no the game isn't dying!"

I am more in the middle. Viewer numbers overall seem to be relatively normalized, if not slightly higher than last year. I think however, this is just a reflection of the eSports community as a whole broadening in number. There is no doubt that there has been a decline in players; a majority of low to mid tier North American and European players have quit the game, in addition to several high profile pro players leaving the competitive scene. While there does seem to be a cadre of younger European gamers breaking into the competitive scene, there are no American players that are currently doing this, which I feel is a terrible thing since it represents one of the largest markets.

Below are a list of problems, some analysis, and some proposed solutions. Enjoy!

What's the problem: StarCraft 2 is too personality driven. There is no longevity here because a player's career is short lived.

The "esports" structure of SC is very personality driven. The fact that it is guided by personality over skill has created a situation where there are no replacements for today's big names. When they go, so goes the popularity of the game. This has been exacerbated by Blizzard (and everyone) not putting a lot of emphasis on teams and rather focusing on purely individual events. I know SC is unlike a MOBA and it's not a 'team' game, but you can have team events in SC. Who will replace Stephano as the badass European that can challenge the best in the world? Who can replace IdrA or White-Ra or Sheth? There is no crop of players who people care about that is 'up and coming' to fill the void when these prominent personalities leave the competitive scene: and the reason they're leaving is in large part because they don't really enjoy the game. Sure people like IdrA and White-Ra are still around, but their relevance will diminish over time the farther removed they are from being competitors. Relying on casters/hosts to drive viewership is not a good long term model.

If there was more focus and emphasis placed on teams this problem would be alleviated.

A major LoL team like TSM could lose TheOddOne and suffer a momentary dip in popularity, but they would eventually replace him, and as long as his skill was world-class, he would develop a following and the team's net popularity would remain the same.

If Blizzard created a system that allowed 'local' talent to emerge this problem would be alleviated.

I'm not trying to say that if there was a large American only tournament, new American stars would magically be born. What it would do however, is provide motivation for American players to dedicate time to the game and increase their skill level within the region and relative to the world population. Over time this may lead to the generation of local heroes and create a world tournament system that has the hype of the Olympics or World Cup, where once per year we can see the world's best fight on a truly global stage.

What's the problem: There is an oversaturation of content which removes the gravity of Blizzard's official championship series. The lack of a "superbowl" type event hurts.

I'm aware that WCS culminates in the highest point playersduking it out in a global finals at Blizzcon. The problem however is that there's nothing aside from the prize pool that will differentiate the WCS Global Finals from Season 1, Seaosn 2, or Season 3.

For example, look at the WCS Season 1 final player list:


Now let's look at the WCS Season 2 final player list:


The Season 3 finals and the Global finals are going to look almost identical. Maybe 1 non Korean, and 7-8 of the top Koreans. So basically, nothing changes. The stage is bigger and there's more money on the line but otherwise there is no difference. I will predict that the viewership for the global finals won't be significantly different than any of the other Season finals and the reason is: there's nothing to get people more hyped about it.

In addition to this, there are a handful of European LAN events that feature a similar looking player list, with more Europeans sprinkled in. Even though the WCS system is designed to have a penultimate 'global' champion, its very format is its undoing. The fact that the global champion looks no different than the Season 1, 2, or 3 champion devalues the final event.

If Blizzard created a regional system in which the world's best came together only at the end of the year, this problem would be alleviated.

Yes, Korea would have the highest viewership. Regions like China and Europe however, would have equally large, if not higher viewership than Korea. People care about those regions. North America is the proverbial odd man out here - the skill level is lower, there isn't as much interest. In a year however, that may change. There has been no sustained or concentrated effort to generate interest in American-only events and American players not named Suppy, HuK, or Scarlett.

IPL1 broke away from being American-only after one event. Shoutcraft America stopped after one event: one-off events are not enough. Blizzard is really the only entity that can run sustained and continuous high-prized events in North America and really should do so to develop this segment of the population. It will help their competitive scene as well as the casual one.

If Blizzard made its WCS event more lucrative and restricted access it would help alleviate the problem.

Riot's idea here is really great, if I understand it correctly. Pro teams are restricted to only compete in the LCS. They are unable to play in 'amateur' events like the MCS, MLG Invitationals, and the like. This is great because it gives amateur teams like Denial eSports the opportunity to win ~$10,000 in tournaments. If Blizzard restricted pro team players to only compete in WCS or other major events it would give more players an opportunity to win money, as well as create scarcity.

If you can see Flash stream every day, it makes his tournament appearances less interesting; if Flash plays in every tournament, it makes things stale. If you know you will only get to see Flash play in the WCS, you'll damn well be tuning in to watch him play because you won't get another opportunity.

What's the problem: Battle.net isn't as much about community and interaction as it was in Brood War. There's too much emphasis on laddering and it doesn't appeal to casuals.

This has been addressed a million times so I won't really go into too much detail. When you logged into battle.net in Brood War, you're instantly placed into a chat channel. It was the main focus of the client, it was centered on the screen and large. Game play options were a small right sidebar. Now, the game options are front-and-center, and chat channels and windows are cumbersome popups. It isn't intuitive, appealing to use, or inviting.

If you're a true casual you probably wouldn't even think about, or know how to join a channel or message a friend. And there are so many options, you wouldn't know where to start. Being placed in Brood War USA-1 is easy, convenient, and instantly can get you talking to people and make a user feel like he's part of a community.

If Blizzard made chat, community, and interaction a large part of the Battle.net experience, the problem would be alleviated.

Right now games, especially ladder are the main focus of the battle.net client. I'm guessing that as a result of the popularity of Brood War as a competitive game, Blizzard thought "let's make ladder the main focus of the new Battle.net since that's what our users care about." Bad call. Blizzard either has forgotten or doesn't know that the community features of the original Battle.net are what gave rise to its competitive scene.

I remember being invited to the [i'm] clan chat back in 98-99 and feeling really great; or when two clans would meet in a chat for a clan war, or social channels like Ladder Challenges or X17 being a breeding ground for trash talk and competition. The competitive arose out of the social. SC2's Battle.net tried to start with the competitive and build the social later, but in the process lost sight of its casual fanbase and didn't do much to keep the competitive gamers around: many notable/semi notable NA players have quit and are now playing League of Legends.

What's the problem: I feel like SC2's gameplay is inherently less fun to watch than Brood War, aside from the graphics. Matches feel stale and anticlimactic.

There was a really great article HERE that discusses the issue of why Brood War and StarCraft 2 are different games. It hinges on Day9's analysis of 'frisbee vs baseball'. Unfortunately for StarCraft 2, the 'frisbee' is more fun and exciting to watch. What I mean by this is, using the information provided in the aforementioned article, battles in StarCraft 2 are much less interesting than in Brood War. The game aspects that make StarCraft 2 insanely difficult to master and challenging go largely unappreciated by viewers.

For example: the positioning and posturing of two armies prior to a battle are absolutely key in StarCraft 2, because once the battle starts, little can be done to change the outcome. This posturing however is incredibly hard to translate into excitement on the part of the viewer. StarCraft 2 battles feature things blowing up, and blobs disappearing. There is much less micro and "play" potential in StarCraft 2 because of how its pathing and units are designed.

In Brood War, actual battles are much more exciting, and I feel as if these are the lynchpin of the viewer experience. Seeing an intensely micro'd battle, or a player with a smaller force taking down a player with a bigger force because of superior unit control and micro is exciting. Knowing that Brood War is more difficult to execute gives the viewer more appreciation for incredible marine splits, storms, and multi-tasking in battle. It is easy to see the impact of the player directly on the battlefield because you know that every action is manually performed by the user, while StarCraft 2's battles are essentially simulations: there is comparatively little the player can do to impact the outcome of a battle in StarCraft 2.

I don't really see how this problem can be fixed since it is part of the game design.

What's the problem: SC2's design doesn't lend itself to introducing casual players to eSports.

A huge part of what Riot does is eSports. Almost everyone who plays the game knows about the competitive side because the whole company agenda pushes it. It makes sense for Riot and helps drive sales. People see their favorite pro player use X skin or play Y champion, and they want to buy it, too. This doesn't exist in SC2, but there are other ways Blizzard can introduce eSports to its casual player base.

Advertising tournaments/events on the main battle.net page is only a small, and relatively new step Blizzard has taken. Blizzcon is a huge marketing tool for eSports, since every fan of Blizzard knows about Blizzcon but may not know about eSports. This is why making Blizzard bigger and more epic is important: creating an "olympic like" WCS event will help here. A casual fan will absolutely never be able to understand that these 16 Koreans are the best players in the world. A casual fan would say "why are there 16 Koreans here." It is much easier to understand and explain to a casual fan, "Here's the American champion, the Chinese champion, the European champion, and the Korean champion and they're all fighting to be crowned world champion." That makes more sense and is logical. A casual fan of the game can take that knowledge, sit down, and cheer for the American to win because he's American, or the Chinese player because he's Chinese, and so on. Otherwise, it's "pick a random Korean and go." Since Blizzcon is the primary marketing tool of playing Blizzard titles competitively, the events at Blizzard need to be easier for a casual fan to understand and become attached to.

Furthermore, eSports should be given more of a focus at Blizzcon. WoW is definitely the largest attraction at the event, and it makes sense because it is Blizzard's biggest money maker. Giving SC2 a center stage and bigger presence however, can help to attract new fans to sit, watch, and become absorbed.

Another idea is to have instructional and highlight videos embedded into the main client of Battle.net, similarly to how Riot often displays videos in its client. Video titles should have generic and enticing enough names for a casual fan to be interested in clicking, and eventually get hooked.

Where do we go from here

There is no easy answer to this question, and life seems pretty grim. It's as if Blizzard is victim to its own hubris, thinking that no game could challenge its position as eSports leader. One of the biggest problems (game play) is unsolvable. HoTS is definitely a better game than WoL, but the inherent aspects of the game engine can't be overcome by balance or new units, I fear Brood War will always be more exciting to watch than StarCraft 2. Blizzard can however, adjust its eSports policy to improve things. It remains to be seen however, if it will do that. 2013 does represent a step in the right direction in terms of the company devoting more funds to eSports, however its practices are largely flawed.

As someone who has been involved in this game at every level, from being a competitive player, tournament organizer, writer, administrator, manager, and promoter since the game was released in 1998, I am hopeful that Blizzard will eventually get things right.

On September 26 2013 17:32 Incognoto wrote:


.... or maybe the game is too hard to play at a reasonable level because the game is badly designed? That sort of thing goes hand in hand you know. Obviously your friends aren't going to take a monocle and a pipe and say "Yes, indeed, this game isn't enjoyable because I believe that x and y are badly designed; indeed x has this kind of effect on this match up and y makes this part of this match up coin-flippy".

No! People who aren't experienced in RTS just don't think about game design, especially if they haven't played several different kinds of RTS. In fact many people who have played many RTS for many years still don't think about game design.

Some people do however. I remember talking to one of the top DoW players (maybe the best? can't remember) back in Beta/early release. He was a top Terran back then and was taking games off of pros. He really didn't like the game at all, for design flaws (didn't manage to get an in depth discussion though and back then what I really wanted was to enjoy SC2). Just goes to show that just because the average scrub doesn't think about these sort of design flaws, others still do.

The game as it is now is playable but it's by no means a high-quality RTS. Even at tip-top Korean Code S play, you see players who can place really high off the back of gimmicks and cheese. Maru beating Innovation was an upset for a reason. There are other examples. What really makes SC2 any good at all is the fact that so many people play it. So finding a game is a matter of seconds, watching high level tournaments is easy, the players are interesting and have personalities, the casters are top notch. EVERYTHING is good about SC2 except the game itself. The game isn't BAD but it's not ground-breaking either. Good play revolves around knowing what kind of bullshit can be thrown at you and what kind of bullshit you can throw at your opponent. If both players have equal knowledge of bullshit, then games come down to mechanics in a macro game and that's kind of really enjoyable to watch and play.

And yeah, the lower of the level of play, the more effective bullshit can be. That can really hurt the casual (money-making) side of a game.

On September 26 2013 18:12 Big J wrote:


OK, so let's have a look in detail about my friends and why they don't play SC2 and something else instead:

Friend S: Played Protoss for 1-2months. Then went back to RPGs (he spends a ton of time on them), because he prefers RPGs and RTS (he has played every CnC, WC3, BW too; stuck to neither of them) is just a nice diversion for him, but he said they are hard and repetitive. All RTS in general.
Friend L1: Would like to play a game of SC2 once in a while (between bronze-gold), but he said he's fed up with playing against kids that have too much time in their life for gaming. So he plays Desert Strike and Simulation games these days, but in general he cut down on gaming a lot.
Friend L2: Played Zerg a lot towards the middle and end of WoL. Then paused, because he said it takes too much time to play SC2. Lately has returned as Terran for some games, but he said he had to stop because he becomes way to ambitous when playing SC2 and he doesn't want to spend that much time on it.
Friend D: Tries every RTS game, but very casually. Watched SC2 from time to time with me. Says it is too nerdy and talks about the "good old days" of SC2 when weird cheeses were dominating.
Friend T: Plays mostly shooters and played the WoL campaign. Would have loved to try SC2, but he is afraid he would spent too much time on it.
Friend V: Played a lot up to platinum as Zerg 2011. Stopped playing because of ladder anxiety. Plays LoL (and a lot of other games) these days because "it's much more relaxing".
Friend P: Says he can't controll his temper when playing SC2. Word for word he said that he liked the game, but it was too hard for him and LoL caters more to his skillset.
Friend A: Played Zerg up to diamond level between 2010-2012. Switch back and forth between SC2, LoL and other games. Stopped playing multiplayer games outside of LAN parties due to time issues.
Friend I: Didn't play the game, but used to watch GSL in 2010 and early 2011. Stopped gaming alltogether. In that periode of time and therefore didn't buy WoL.

So yeah, nearly all of those people stopped playing because the game was too hard or they would have to spend too much time on it to get better (which is a very similar reason). Not one of them blamed the game's design for it and all of them actually like SC2.

On September 26 2013 18:55 Kharnage wrote:
Am I the only one who looked at the season finals and thought 'wow, they are completely different! Only alive made it to both quarter finals'
I genuinely thought it was going to be a complaint about the inconsistency of players.

At the end of last year they did the 'regional' thing and the finals sucked. There were no surprises. The koreans won. At least the current seasonal finals are exciting and interesting.

On September 26 2013 18:12 Big J wrote:


OK, so let's have a look in detail about my friends and why they don't play SC2 and something else instead:

Friend S: Played Protoss for 1-2months. Then went back to RPGs (he spends a ton of time on them), because he prefers RPGs and RTS (he has played every CnC, WC3, BW too; stuck to neither of them) is just a nice diversion for him, but he said they are hard and repetitive. All RTS in general.
Friend L1: Would like to play a game of SC2 once in a while (between bronze-gold), but he said he's fed up with playing against kids that have too much time in their life for gaming. So he plays Desert Strike and Simulation games these days, but in general he cut down on gaming a lot.
Friend L2: Played Zerg a lot towards the middle and end of WoL. Then paused, because he said it takes too much time to play SC2. Lately has returned as Terran for some games, but he said he had to stop because he becomes way to ambitous when playing SC2 and he doesn't want to spend that much time on it.
Friend D: Tries every RTS game, but very casually. Watched SC2 from time to time with me. Says it is too nerdy and talks about the "good old days" of SC2 when weird cheeses were dominating.
Friend T: Plays mostly shooters and played the WoL campaign. Would have loved to try SC2, but he is afraid he would spent too much time on it.
Friend V: Played a lot up to platinum as Zerg 2011. Stopped playing because of ladder anxiety. Plays LoL (and a lot of other games) these days because "it's much more relaxing".
Friend P: Says he can't controll his temper when playing SC2. Word for word he said that he liked the game, but it was too hard for him and LoL caters more to his skillset.
Friend A: Played Zerg up to diamond level between 2010-2012. Switch back and forth between SC2, LoL and other games. Stopped playing multiplayer games outside of LAN parties due to time issues.
Friend I: Didn't play the game, but used to watch GSL in 2010 and early 2011. Stopped gaming alltogether. In that periode of time and therefore didn't buy WoL.

So yeah, nearly all of those people stopped playing because the game was too hard or they would have to spend too much time on it to get better (which is a very similar reason). Not one of them blamed the game's design for it and all of them actually like SC2.

On September 26 2013 19:47 MikeMM wrote:

We got your point.
But don’t forget that when we talk about SC2 we talk about it not only as a game but also as e-sport.
Those who watch sc2 tournaments want this game to be harder and more demanding for players than it is now.

The only e-sports I watch are BW and SC2.

I also watch a lot of real sport NBA and F1 and I must tell you what these sports on professional level are difficult as hell.
And nobody asks to make NBA rules easier or to lower basket because it is more casual friendly.
F1 cars are the most difficult cars in the world and spectators are happy with that.

The problem is that SC2 tries to be both e-sport and casual game. It’s just not possible.