|
On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players.
Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments.
|
On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments.
BW wasn't meant to be an esport either and got very little support from Blizzard, so those are obviously non-factors. The last one might have played a big role, I'm nowhere near familiar enough with what happened to know. My guess is that still won't be the whole story, though. WoW arenas are just boring to watch.
|
On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players.
Only a small part of the whole playerbase actually played arenas.
|
On February 17 2014 06:32 LaLuSh wrote:
On the parts where you say SC2 would not have benefitted in any significant way from an F2P-model: I agree 100%.
THIS. A lot of people bought SC2 at first.. the fact that they left is not because it cost them something.. come on.
|
On February 17 2014 07:41 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 06:32 LaLuSh wrote:
On the parts where you say SC2 would not have benefitted in any significant way from an F2P-model: I agree 100%. THIS. A lot of people bought SC2 at first.. the fact that they left is not because it cost them something.. come on.
Yeah they left cause the singleplayer only takes a few hours
|
On February 17 2014 07:37 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Only a small part of the whole playerbase actually played arenas.
And only a small part of BW's playerbase played BW, but people still watched the game because it was a fun game to watch. Surely if WoW were more fun to watch, WoW players wouldn't have let "I don't play 2v2" stand in the way of their watching 2v2.
|
On February 17 2014 07:37 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments. BW wasn't meant to be an esport either and got very little support from Blizzard, so those are obviously non-factors. The last one might have played a big role, I'm nowhere near familiar enough with what happened to know. My guess is that still won't be the whole story, though. WoW arenas are just boring to watch.
Only way to actually make it work would've been that tournament realm was up all the time which it wasn't if i remember correctly, it was only up during the qualifiers etc. If you're not playing on TR you would be only playing against players on your battle group so that kinda sucks and how to play against specific opponents? Also the gear from PvE would've given an edge to some players. I'm not 100% sure but only Blizzard had access to the spectator tool and twitch wasn't a thing when WoW was at it's peak so no player PoV streaming with HD.
There were just way too many complications to make it a real esport and blizzard clearly didn't want it and they even stated that many times.
|
On February 17 2014 07:45 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:37 Paperplane wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Only a small part of the whole playerbase actually played arenas. And only a small part of BW's playerbase played BW, but people still watched the game because it was a fun game to watch. Surely if WoW were more fun to watch, WoW players wouldn't have let "I don't play 2v2" stand in the way of their watching 2v2.
So what if BW's playerbase didn't play BW because it was too hard for them? That means they'd still be interested in BW even though they cannot play it 'properly' themselves. It seems very logical to me that wow players who are not interested in arena will not watch an arena tournament. It's not like they stopped watching because it wasn't entertaining enough they just never started because they didn't care about arenas at all.
|
Both of Khaldor's videos are excellent, but he stops just short of the main difference: hero units are directly linked in the viewers mind with the player. They personify the player, with whom the viewer has an emotional connection. Their progress and death is the progress and death of the player itself, at least in the suspended reality of the viewers mind. The death and life of an important, but non-singular unit, just doesn't create the same psychological drama.
|
On February 17 2014 07:51 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 07:37 Paperplane wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Only a small part of the whole playerbase actually played arenas. And only a small part of BW's playerbase played BW, but people still watched the game because it was a fun game to watch. Surely if WoW were more fun to watch, WoW players wouldn't have let "I don't play 2v2" stand in the way of their watching 2v2. So what if BW's playerbase didn't play BW because it was too hard for them? That means they'd still be interested in BW even though they cannot play it 'properly' themselves. It seems very logical to me that wow players who are not interested in arena will not watch an arena tournament. It's not like they stopped watching because it wasn't entertaining enough they just never started because they didn't care about arenas at all.
90% of BW's playerbase DIDN'T play BW competively, they only played BGH, UMS, Tower Defense (and IdrA striptease  ) . But just by playing the game casually for like a day or two, people would understand the difficulty and herculean tasks to do what the pros are able to accomplish. BW was attracted enough in the casual level as well as the hardcore one.
|
On February 17 2014 07:14 _SpiRaL_ wrote:
Interesting post LaLush. I am not too familiar with BW but the perspective that you spent all your time managing bases in BW and checking in on your army is somewhat of a revelation to me given the difficulty of army control and level of micro needed to be efficient with an army.
The later into a game you got in BW, the more difficult it became to keep up with your production. There was no way you could hotkey all your production buildings past the early-midgame in BW. Every production round required shifting screens to individually select every building. Rally points needed to be set manually for every production building. Workers sent to mine manually for every main building. Buildings couldn't be shift queued when built... you had to wait for probes to start warping something before issuing another build order.
The later into a game you got in BW, the more complex the base/macro management aspect became. The later you got, the greater the tension became between distributing your time between production and between micromanagement.
In SC2 it's kind of the opposite. Macro management is the hardest in the early-midgame when you're still building up your production while trying to be active and/or stay alive. Once you get so late that most of your supplydepots/pylons/overlords and your barracks/hatcheries/warpgates are already setup and operational, there is less and less of a reason to jump back to base/macro management in SC2.
You lose workers in the lategame in SC2? Relatively, and mechanically, speaking it's easier to replace them in the lategame than in the early/midgame (with 3 nexus you queue up 3-15 workers and produce them 3 at a time, whereas with only 1 nexus you have to alocate your attention towards producing probes at that nexus on more seperate occasions).
This applies to zerg and larva inject as well. The later into the game you get, the more you tend to run on a larva surplus than actually be forced to nail those injects with perfect timing. People have too much larva lategame rather than too little of it. Also the more hatcheries you have the easier and faster do you replace lost workers and units.
In BW, when every worker has to be produced individually because there simply aren't enough hotkeys, and when every of those workers on every nexus has to be sent to mine manually... the complexity of macro increases with game length.
It's sort of paradoxical that macro becomes easier the further into an SC2 game you get, but it's essentially true... Those injects are most important to hit in the early-midgame. Those MULEs are most important to use regularly in the early-midgame. Chrono boost relevance and importance equivalently seems to decrease with game length. Having to build 5 probes from 5 nexii in SC2 as opposed to 1 probe from 1 nexus does not bring with it any meaningful difference in time and attention allocation.
Time allocation is generally the same or easier the further into a game you get, whether it be for making marines/marauders or for warping in zealots/stalkers/HTs. Sure, you have to click aaaaaaaaaaa or zzzzzzzzzzzz a few more times. But the time and attention allocation to that round of production is essentially the same as in the earlier phases of a game (with the difference that earlier in a game there was the added complexity of worrying about not getting supply blocked, and about adding production buildings to keep up with a growing economy).
* "Spending all your time managing your bases in BW" is of course an exaggeration. All players had different styles and approaches to this in BW. But the point I wanted to convey was: the later into a game you got, the more you would suffer from neglecting either one or the other of micro and macro management. If you controlled that lategame battle in detail, you could be damned sure you'd be floating 5k minerals while -- out of your opponents production buildings -- another 100 supply just popped out.
|
On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments.
Wrong. Blizzard didn't support SCBW and it did just fine. To a casual (myself at least with WoW arena) that shit was boring as FUCK and you don't really understand the player's movements and because of that you cannot determine what is amazing and decide it is boring. Also how long it took for something to die was an issue in WoW arena which might be a part of the reason for the lack of success for Warcraft.
I've never really liked when Khaldor made these types of videos because his opinion seems very basic usually. There are a bunch of factors why SC2 isn't extremely popular his "opinion" doesn't begin to explain why the game isn't that popular. Just to list a few.
Blizzard's constant patching changing meta game which delays what happened is Broodwar where a full developed meta game allowed players to make/design builds to counter said metagame.
Blizzard's WCS system splitting up the best players in the world into 3 regions delaying the progression of the metagame in Korea and weakening the GOM tournament.
How spread out players and teams are delays the improvement and refinement of players and their strategies.
The lack of SC2 being played in PC bongs for one reason or another, decreasing the fan base.
The delayed solid UMS/casual play of the game also deterred people from playing casually.
Honestly if Blizzard just made the game and didn't touch it the esports side of the game would be much improved. Maybe perhaps in a situation of a metagame that was truly boring in one matchup or another change the game to modify that aspect, but other than that do nothing. After that SC2 will do great as far as attracting fans, being popular, ect. It might not overtake Dota or LoL, but I think the fans/player base will increase greatly.
|
I definitely agree that SC2 focuses too much on macro to become a big esport.
Those aspects of the game definitely take skill, but they are also basically invisible for spectators and not very fun.(IMO)
I see that people are bringing up BW macro, but they are kind of missing the point. BW required a lot of micro at the pro level, which makes it very watchable. Boxer's Marine Micro
It's easy to see what is going on even if you do not have strong game knowledge. You aren't looking at his barracks pump out more marines, you are watching a handful of marines take out a huge number of units.
I don't think that SC3 needs heroes or anything like that, but I do think that having more readable battles would be helpful.
Sometimes it's very had to see who's ahead/winning until the battle is already over and there is very little someone can do after a battle starts.
|
On February 16 2014 00:46 Faust852 wrote:
The only reasons they are more popular is because 1) they are free, 2) they are mucch more accessible to begin with, 3) you can't report the fault on your mate when it's 1v1.
This is the simplest way of putting it and all that needs to be said really
blizzard is too money hungry to let the game go totally f2p minus the campaign
|
On February 17 2014 11:00 shivver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 00:46 Faust852 wrote:
The only reasons they are more popular is because 1) they are free, 2) they are mucch more accessible to begin with, 3) you can't report the fault on your mate when it's 1v1. This is the simplest way of putting it and all that needs to be said really blizzard is too money hungry to let the game go totally f2p minus the campaign
The way I see it, it is the F2P model that is greedy. It has to be. It usually puts almost everything behind a pay wall, making you take out the credit card at every corner. I prefer buy to play over free to play.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes F2P is done right. But most of the time, it goes very wrong.
|
On February 17 2014 10:02 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments. Wrong. Blizzard didn't support SCBW and it did just fine. To a casual (myself at least with WoW arena) that shit was boring as FUCK and you don't really understand the player's movements and because of that you cannot determine what is amazing and decide it is boring. Also how long it took for something to die was an issue in WoW arena which might be a part of the reason for the lack of success for Warcraft.
I think im writing this shit to empty walls since im repeating myself here. Blizzards first priority was PVE so it was balanced from PvE stand point first, there was no spectator tool for the public, players were divided on their on servers and battle groups, there was no "lobby" that you could join and have people spectate the game and there were no replays. You have to be a wizard of some sorts to make a working esport from that shit... there's just no way.
I watched a game of LoL just now and i didn't really understand the player's movements and i couldn't tell what was amazing so it was boring as fuck.
|
On February 17 2014 11:08 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 10:02 NoobSkills wrote:On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments. Wrong. Blizzard didn't support SCBW and it did just fine. To a casual (myself at least with WoW arena) that shit was boring as FUCK and you don't really understand the player's movements and because of that you cannot determine what is amazing and decide it is boring. Also how long it took for something to die was an issue in WoW arena which might be a part of the reason for the lack of success for Warcraft. I think im writing this shit to empty walls since im repeating myself here. Blizzards first priority was PVE so it was balanced from PvE stand point first, there was no spectator tool for the public, players were divided on their on servers and battle groups, there was no "lobby" that you could join and have people spectate the game and there were no replays. You have to be a wizard of some sorts to make a working esport from that shit... there's just no way. I watched a game of LoL just now and i didn't really understand the player's movements and i couldn't tell what was amazing so it was boring as fuck.
The improvements to BW were not for esports they were for multiplayer though the internet not for esports or balance. Also any modder could have done the same thing. I feel the same way about LoL, but that doesn't make my point any less valid because I didn't invest any time into LoL and too don't understand it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 17 2014 11:08 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 10:02 NoobSkills wrote:On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments. Wrong. Blizzard didn't support SCBW and it did just fine. To a casual (myself at least with WoW arena) that shit was boring as FUCK and you don't really understand the player's movements and because of that you cannot determine what is amazing and decide it is boring. Also how long it took for something to die was an issue in WoW arena which might be a part of the reason for the lack of success for Warcraft. I think im writing this shit to empty walls since im repeating myself here. Blizzards first priority was PVE so it was balanced from PvE stand point first, there was no spectator tool for the public, players were divided on their on servers and battle groups, there was no "lobby" that you could join and have people spectate the game and there were no replays. You have to be a wizard of some sorts to make a working esport from that shit... there's just no way. I watched a game of LoL just now and i didn't really understand the player's movements and i couldn't tell what was amazing so it was boring as fuck.
hey man dont make fun of LoL they right click alot to move their one unit around.
In all seriousness the biggest problem that the community can fix overnight is the problem with prize distribution. Having a tournament with 100 thousand dollars winner takes all, will be more exciting for sure, but at the cost of not rewarding our players we love so much.
someone made this point a while ago, but in SC2 we have...
1st 20,000
2nd 10,000
3rd 5,000
4th 2,000
5th 1,000
6th 500
7th 400
etc....
While in Golf they have
1st 13,000
2nd 11,000
3rd 8,000
4th 6,000
5th 4,000
6th 2,000
7th 1,000
etc....
Im not sure their actual percentage but its a hell of a lot more forgiving and lets people actually win SOMETHING, and not spend an entire weekend doing really well, but getting 8th place and coming home with 300 bucks. which probably will not cover the travel expenses.
|
On February 17 2014 12:10 Roswell wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 17 2014 11:08 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 10:02 NoobSkills wrote:On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments. Wrong. Blizzard didn't support SCBW and it did just fine. To a casual (myself at least with WoW arena) that shit was boring as FUCK and you don't really understand the player's movements and because of that you cannot determine what is amazing and decide it is boring. Also how long it took for something to die was an issue in WoW arena which might be a part of the reason for the lack of success for Warcraft. I think im writing this shit to empty walls since im repeating myself here. Blizzards first priority was PVE so it was balanced from PvE stand point first, there was no spectator tool for the public, players were divided on their on servers and battle groups, there was no "lobby" that you could join and have people spectate the game and there were no replays. You have to be a wizard of some sorts to make a working esport from that shit... there's just no way. I watched a game of LoL just now and i didn't really understand the player's movements and i couldn't tell what was amazing so it was boring as fuck. hey man dont make fun of LoL they right click alot to move their one unit around. In all seriousness the biggest problem that the community can fix overnight is the problem with prize distribution. Having a tournament with 100 thousand dollars winner takes all, will be more exciting for sure, but at the cost of not rewarding our players we love so much. someone made this point a while ago, but in SC2 we have... 1st 20,000 2nd 10,000 3rd 5,000 4th 2,000 5th 1,000 6th 500 7th 400 etc.... While in Golf they have 1st 13,000 2nd 11,000 3rd 8,000 4th 6,000 5th 4,000 6th 2,000 7th 1,000 etc.... Im not sure their actual percentage but its a hell of a lot more forgiving and lets people actually win SOMETHING, and not spend an entire weekend doing really well, but getting 8th place and coming home with 300 bucks. which probably will not cover the travel expenses.
You are not wrong, but you are not right either. The money split is not the reason for the game not being popular or even in most situations pros quitting. Though you are right a better distributed prize pool over time keeps people trying hard. Also this is one tournament not every tournament. There are plenty of opportunities to win money in SC2.
|
On February 17 2014 08:21 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 07:51 Paperplane wrote:On February 17 2014 07:45 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 07:37 Paperplane wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Only a small part of the whole playerbase actually played arenas. And only a small part of BW's playerbase played BW, but people still watched the game because it was a fun game to watch. Surely if WoW were more fun to watch, WoW players wouldn't have let "I don't play 2v2" stand in the way of their watching 2v2. So what if BW's playerbase didn't play BW because it was too hard for them? That means they'd still be interested in BW even though they cannot play it 'properly' themselves. It seems very logical to me that wow players who are not interested in arena will not watch an arena tournament. It's not like they stopped watching because it wasn't entertaining enough they just never started because they didn't care about arenas at all. 90% of BW's playerbase DIDN'T play BW competively, they only played BGH, UMS, Tower Defense (and IdrA striptease ) . But just by playing the game casually for like a day or two, people would understand the difficulty and herculean tasks to do what the pros are able to accomplish. BW was attracted enough in the casual level as well as the hardcore one.
But the vast majority of BW viewers were Koreans who played at PC Bangs, which had cloned BW copies installed. Which meant you basically only had LAN melee maps.
On February 17 2014 12:10 Roswell wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 17 2014 11:08 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2014 10:02 NoobSkills wrote:On February 17 2014 07:32 Daray wrote:On February 17 2014 07:27 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 17 2014 06:42 mnck wrote:
Lol is popular as a spectator sport because everyone plays it. Not everyone plays SC2 cause it's fucking hard and unforgiving. If sc2 was easy and casual like LoL it might have a massive player base but it would also be just as interesting as LoL in terms of strategic depth. Also, DOTA 2 wont have nearly the same impact as LoL since it is also unforgiving for new players (which league isn't at all).
LoL doesn't have many viewers because of how the game is presented but because of how many players play the game. I have given LoL an honest chance as a spectator sport many times, and even as a DOTA veteran who has watched dota 1 since long before LoL even existed and even I still have a very hard visually seeing what is happening because the graphics in that game and the way its presented during any LCS live cast terrible. Yet I understand that if I had played it myself I would understand anything that goes on because no matter how complex it is visually you will learn to see through it as a player, thats part of what kill MOBA players have. This is not a critique of LoL specifically because I'm sure it's the same for completely new players watching DOTA (even tho my personal opinion is that DOTA is far better presented than League both in terms of ingame graphics as well as outgame graphics during production)
Whether SC2 suffers from this complexity as well I cannot say, since I have played the game since before I saw my first tournament, but one thing for sure, its not even NEARLY as popular as a game compared to LoL so no way it will have a similar viewerbase. If SC2 was more fun for the bad players as well, then I'm sure it would have been a huge success. I said this on the previous page and I'll say it again, if that's really true, why did WoW Arenas fail so spectacularly as an esport? Certainly not for lack of players. Because it wasn't meant to be an esport and blizzard didn't support it at all and it was impossible for anyone else to hold tournaments. Wrong. Blizzard didn't support SCBW and it did just fine. To a casual (myself at least with WoW arena) that shit was boring as FUCK and you don't really understand the player's movements and because of that you cannot determine what is amazing and decide it is boring. Also how long it took for something to die was an issue in WoW arena which might be a part of the reason for the lack of success for Warcraft. I think im writing this shit to empty walls since im repeating myself here. Blizzards first priority was PVE so it was balanced from PvE stand point first, there was no spectator tool for the public, players were divided on their on servers and battle groups, there was no "lobby" that you could join and have people spectate the game and there were no replays. You have to be a wizard of some sorts to make a working esport from that shit... there's just no way. I watched a game of LoL just now and i didn't really understand the player's movements and i couldn't tell what was amazing so it was boring as fuck. hey man dont make fun of LoL they right click alot to move their one unit around. In all seriousness the biggest problem that the community can fix overnight is the problem with prize distribution. Having a tournament with 100 thousand dollars winner takes all, will be more exciting for sure, but at the cost of not rewarding our players we love so much. someone made this point a while ago, but in SC2 we have... 1st 20,000 2nd 10,000 3rd 5,000 4th 2,000 5th 1,000 6th 500 7th 400 etc.... While in Golf they have 1st 13,000 2nd 11,000 3rd 8,000 4th 6,000 5th 4,000 6th 2,000 7th 1,000 etc.... Im not sure their actual percentage but its a hell of a lot more forgiving and lets people actually win SOMETHING, and not spend an entire weekend doing really well, but getting 8th place and coming home with 300 bucks. which probably will not cover the travel expenses.
The real difference between SC2 and Golf is that the Championship winners in SC2 make what the 70th place finishers do in Golf.
Unless it's a WCS Grand Final, and then the winner makes about the same as the 20th...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
