Putting Theory Into Practice

Much has been said about the changes to WCS 2016 and its implications on the DreamHack and IEM circuits. Arguments for and against have been lobbed across the divide like hand grenades, and they don't really bear repeating—this will likely be a ceaseless cold war. However, DreamHack: Leipzig will finally put some of the theories behind the changes into practice. This will serve as the first true test of our terraformed competitive landscape, and it will more than likely widen the crevasse between sides of this debate.

And how could it not? The factors that everyone will pay attention to will be used as ammunition by anyone regardless of the outcome. While information can be open to interpretation, using limited information too soon is also a great flaw.

1. Viewer count

One key point regarding the tournaments in question is whether or not the exclusion of Koreans will cause a rise or fall in viewer counts. Many people believe that the outcome will be indicative of the plan's success or failure, but that's an incredibly short sighted view on the matter.

Should the audience for Leipzig match or eclipse previous records, supporters of WCS 2016 will use it as vindication—a healthy viewer count suggests a healthy fanbase, after all. This outcome would suggest that there really is a market for foreigner only events, and that the majority of fans around the world (that is, not the hardcore fans) is interested in watching their hometown heroes. Whether we like it or not, nationalism is a strong motivator, and money in esports follows peoples eyes. However, this does not prove that Koreans are at fault or should be singled out; only that people will indeed watch foreigners fight for supremacy. Is sacrificing an entire region's participation for viewership really the only way to solve such a conundrum?

It's also possible for viewership to decrease. Should that happen, what exactly would we blame it on? Some will likely say that fans only want to watch the highest level of StarCraft offered by Koreans. Some will interpret it as a lack of interest in watching foreigners bludgeon each other to death. Others still will surmise that without the Sisyphean narrative of foreigners beating Koreans, the allure of DreamHacks and IEMs with open brackets has all but disappeared. More than likely, all of the above would apply to certain degrees. However, these are only three of many possibilities. A lack of awareness for the event or its players could be a potential cause; a jaded foreign fanbase could be another.

The picture, of course, is far more complex than our reductionist reasoning often allows, and viewership fluctuations can be caused by several reasons. Yet is viewership—and in this argument, immediate viewership as opposed to potential growth—the prime factor that should drive decision-making in esports? That, of course, is an argument in and of itself.

2. Game quality

For the self proclaimed purist, nothing matters more than good games. Some insist that their fandom for the game far outstrips their individual fandom for players, and any reduction in the quality of games hurts them more than the absence or elimination of their favorite players. While there is merit in such a belief—good games are inherently more entertaining, of course—game quality is and always will be a subjective matter. While some fans prefer macro games, other prefer well planned strategic strikes. There are even some people who love cheese (hi stuchiu) or 'dumb' games (mostly just lichter). While there is certainly a general consensus for the best games, enjoyment at the median level is far more contentious.

There is even the theory that the average fan—again, not the hardcore fanbase that presumably understands the game deeper—would not be able to tell who is playing if there were no player name cards. While the original statement resulted in a lengthy debate of its own, the suggestion is not without truth. We can, of course, identify whether or not games are good by merely watching. Yet could our opinions be clouded by the names we see on screen? It's possible, and games should certainly be judged by their merit and not by the men behind the mouses. The belief that "better players result in better games" is not necessarily true, either, as the highest level of mech vs pre-patch swarmhost games in Heart of the Swarm can attest to. Our love of scrappy games from the likes of FanTaSy and TRUE also suggest that perfection is not the only basis of game quality, and that good games can come from any source. In fact, the much reviled FireCake (often for his playstyle as much as his personality) played one of the best ZvZs (a matchup similarly reviled) of last year against Zanster.

At the end of the day, do we really remember the average level of games throughout the entire tournament, or only its defining moments? Do we fondly recall how every Ro32 game was of adequate quality, or do we laud that one epic series in an otherwise drab programme? If all games could be 5-star games, all the better. But no tournament is immune to bad games, even GSL and SSL, and we hardly rate them less because of them.

3. The fates of Hydra and viOLet

While the field for Leipzig is primarily foreign, there are still two Koreans participating in Hydra and viOLet. Their fates will likely draw debate, especially if they have polarizing performances.

Should one of them win, it would further enforce—as if it needed more enforcing—the Korean hegemony in StarCraft. A cumulative inability by the best foreign players to oust the two zergs would either be seen as an embarrassment or further proof that "some Koreans" is almost the same as "many Koreans" and hence a necessity for "no Koreans" (should the goal of region locking be to give foreigners a better chance of winning).

Should both of them lose—and it's certainly within the realm of possibility that they even lose early—then could it be used as indication that foreigners have caught up with Korean imports and perhaps even the middle tier of Korean players? WCS Season 3 suggested as much, and GPL 2015 (iAsonu beat Flash; Snute and Lilbow beat Jaedong) provided further evidence. Obviously, the top tier is still out of reach as events like DH LotV showed. However, that foreigners are now competitive with that middle tier is a vast improvement, and two questions naturally follow. To what do we owe those improvements, and how do we further foster it?

The answer for WCS 2016, it seems, is to motivate foreigners with more opportunities. Yet will events like DH Leipzig, with only two Koreans, be the only gauge for progress throughout the year?

---

The potential debate after this event must of course come with a caveat: this is only one event. As much as we would like to draw conclusions from it, the fact remains that it cannot be studied in isolation.

Will this tournament stop people from arguing? Most definitely not. But at least we'll finally have a real glimpse of what 2016 may have to offer, and we'll have some more data to fuel our never ending polemic.