|
THERE IS NO TLDR. Too many points to condense
Currently, we're looking at a bit of an oversaturation problem in Dota, and as a player myself, I currently give zero fucks about any tournament. And I'm someone who used to watch every tournament there was on the matchticker. In fact, to tell you how little I care, I don't think I'm even going to bother watching TI5.
There's too many teams with too many unknown faces, and at the same time too few teams that get regular time in the spotlight.
There's also too many tournaments going on with varying amounts of money in the prizepool, yet it's always the same 5-6 teams that take the pot.
Funnily enough, over the last year, I instead started watching LCS/OGN, and I don't even play LoL. But from what I can tell, a lot of what Riot does right, is the exact stuff that the Dota community absolutely does not want.
The LCS Model
In the Dota community, it's known as a "monopoly", "synthetic growth", "Riot controlling everything", the list goes on.
But what many of us have avoided are the numbers supporting its success.
The most obvious is viewer count. Every single LCS match easily reaches TI-level numbers, and usually more. Let's compare this to Dota, where the group stages of The International are usually only able to hit half the numbers for your average LCS match.
Whether or not you like the "complete control" that Riot has over the pro scene, the viewer count alone is proof of the model's success, and the number of eyeballs it attracts is reason enough for sponsors to pour money into the LCS. No tournament in Dota has been able to reach this level of success.
Secondly, the teams. Name me 8 teams from each region in Dota that are currently "in the spotlight" right now. That's NA, EU, China and SEA. Can't do it? Thought so.
In comparison, LCS guarantees 8 teams per region (now expanding to 10 teams in the upcoming year) to have their fair share of the spotlight. This attracts sponsors, attracts a fanbase, and assists in creating a fan-to-team rapport.
Furthermore, it guarantees teams a job for at least half a year. We compare this to Dota, where only the top maybe 12 (?) teams are able to maintain a paycheck through winnings, and that's not even taking into account the number of replacements each of those top teams go through in a single year.
Now, some people enjoy watching the number of reshuffles for every Dota team. Some people like the fact that Dota is a "do or die" world. But as a viewer, seeing the same 5-6 teams taking the prize money in every single tournament is boring, old, and honestly is a disincentive for younger teams to enter the hypercompetitive world of professional Dota.
TBH, Dota is too competitive right now. Assume you could pick either LoL or Dota to play professionally. Dota is super high risk, but super high reward if you make it to the top 10 teams in the world. Otherwise, you face being kicked, disbanding, or worse. And this can all happen in a matter of weeks.
In contrast, even if you were a 40th placed team in the world (probably 8th place in your region), you'd still have the stability of a pay-check.
Going pro in Dota or LoL seems to be a choice between "go big or go home" and a "career", respectively. One offers huge rewards, but only to the absolute cream of the crop. The other offers stability. For any sane person, going pro in LoL would definitely be the more attractive choice.
Third point: Variety of tournaments. Dota has a ton of tournaments. I'd personally say so many that I don't care. I would also like to add that it's so many that it's work to follow the pro Dota scene.
On the other hand, LoL has the one tournament to rule them all: the LCS. It attracts a shit-ton of viewers every single match. There's only one tournament to worry about, and only one tournament you need to know of. It is easy to care for the teams that you see on a regular basis. If you sample every scene in the upcoming year, you will consistently see FIFTY teams playing every week, each of them attracting hundreds upon thousands of viewers. Dota will have a ton of teams, but most will disband, a lot will reshuffle, but in the end, it's the same 5-6 teams that make it to the play-offs, and it's the same 2-3 teams that take 1st place.
Expanding on all that, I have gotten fucking busy over the last year with exams and study, that I honestly cannot be fucked following Dota. I drifted to LoL because there were a few things there that Dota didn't have: hype for every match, and a consistent and regular broadcast schedule that starts on the fucking dot. For busy people like me, you have no idea how much I appreciate the LCS model over Dota's free-for-all frenzy between competing tournaments.
I'll admit I used to watch every tournament in Dota, but back then I had time. Now I have very little time. And this is a key reason why I only watch LCS now.
Finally, Casters. I'm going to be perfectly honesty. I fucking hate Dota casters. I think they're lazy, i think they're sloppy and unprofessional, and I think the reason they're like this is that most of them have a guaranteed job and zero competition. They go into the game and yolo it.
The LCS casters are spot-on. They don't bullshit, they don't give crap opinions. They stick to facts. Furthermore, the way they deliver their lines control hype and tempo in their casting is like nothing else. The way they hand over to their co-casters is flawless. They prep for hours before every play-day, so they come in with the right talking points when it comes to drafts, comfort picks, playstyles, etc during Drafting phase, and low-action moments in the game.
TBH, I don't think any Dota caster is capable of being hired by Riot should they take over Dota. Not even Tobi, who everyone praises and can't even be screwed learning player names, or Synderen, who has all the right words and phrases but just lacks authority.
LCS casters get hired if they're good enough. And trust me, there's a difference between a ton of LoL casters. I've watched NACL, I've watched the ESL-hosted LCS expansion tournament. Those casters suck, LCS casters are good. The LCS has standards for casters. Dota does not.
Dota wants to be "open" and "organic". And Dota players despise the "synthetic" and "total control" the evil Riot has over the pro scene.
Anything Riot does is bad in the eyes of a Dota player, and must be avoided at all costs or else #PraiseValve will smite them with its fury.
But looking at it rationally, apart from the "total control" aspect of the LCS, what does it actually do wrong? It's got the viewer numbers to attract sponsors. It gives all teams time in the spotlight. It also gives job stability, and makes the LCS stable career path.
Dota does not give any of that. And currently, Dota players are defending Dota's model because it's A. Not Riot, B. Because Valve "wants" to keep it like this (because Valve is the epitome of everything right in the world /s) and C. Some argue that they "like" the Do-or-Die world of Dota.
Well I don't give a fuck.
I've looked at it calmly, and I've decided that if we look past the "LoL" and "Riot" badge, and replaced them with "Dota" and "Valve", we'd see that the LCS model is actually good for the overall stability of the scene, even if it does sacrifice a bit of spotlight for 3rd party organisers.
My final point is that Valve should adopt what Riot is doing.
What I want to know is why Dota players really hate the LCS model.
|
Did somebody say that we hate it?
|
league casters are better then dota casters
prodota players make better casters then dota casters
the league system is good but people dont want say that a superior moba has something superior to them
|
Your post is exaggerated, and you don't seem to be able to able to stick to one topic (it goes from tournament models, to financial security, to caster bashing). But, ignoring all that and addressing the main point, the reply is: Valve doesn't want to be in the tournament-running business. As they say again and again, they want to provide a game, and they want to provide tools that allow others to run tournaments. The only exception they make is the International.
|
It's a lot easier to argue a point when you don't lace your post with exaggerations, pointless rhetoric, sweeping generalizations and straw man arguments.
|
How easy is it for an unknown team to make it into the LCS?
On December 22 2014 18:21 dizzy101 wrote:
Your post is exaggerated, and you don't seem to be able to able to stick to one topic (it goes from tournament models, to financial security, to caster bashing). But, ignoring all that and addressing the main point, the reply is: Valve doesn't want to be in the tournament-running business. As they say again and again, they want to provide a game, and they want to provide tools that allow others to run tournaments. The only exception they make is the International.
And the 250k CSGO majors, although those are kinda co-run by Valve and the TOs
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
The most obvious is viewer count. Every single LCS match easily reaches TI-level numbers, and usually more. Let's compare this to Dota, where the group stages of The International are usually only able to hit half the numbers for your average LCS match.
The numbers have to do with the popularity of the game itself, and very little to do with the business model. If I recall correctly, TI actually gets MORE stream views relative to the size of DotA's playerbase than Worlds does (that is, a higher percentage of the DotA playerbase watched TI--Worlds just gets larger raw numbers because the general interest in LoL is higher thanks to its popularity as a game).
On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
Secondly, the teams. Name me 8 teams from each region in Dota that are currently "in the spotlight" right now. That's NA, EU, China and SEA. Can't do it? Thought so.
In comparison, LCS guarantees 8 teams per region (now expanding to 10 teams in the upcoming year) to have their fair share of the spotlight. This attracts sponsors, attracts a fanbase, and assists in creating a fan-to-team rapport.
"Their fair share" is a pretty positive way of spinning the fact that Riot keeps mediocre teams that aren't remotely competitive "in the spotlight" due to the ridiculously biased format.
In 5 splits of NA LCS (Spring/Summer 2013, Spring/Summer 2014, upcoming 2015 Spring), 4 teams have been in every split, and 1 team that came on Summer 2013 has been on every split thereafter. A format that purportedly puts more teams in the spotlight has only really ever had 2-3 spots every season for a new team to shine. What's more, of these 5 teams, 4 are mediocre-to-trash level teams that have not been remotely competitive in international events at an point in either season, and are only even in LCS at all because they aren't shitty ENOUGH to lose to the 11th best team in the region (and because they had popular players since before LCS existed so it's in Riot's interest to keep them all in LCS)--the LCS up-down format heavily favors teams that are already in, and the financial resources offered by Riot creates a disparity between the mediocre LCS teams and the top amateur teams that creates a HIGHER barrier to entry into top level play.
On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
Now, some people enjoy watching the number of reshuffles for every Dota team. Some people like the fact that Dota is a "do or die" world. But as a viewer, seeing the same 5-6 teams taking the prize money in every single tournament is boring, old, and honestly is a disincentive for younger teams to enter the hypercompetitive world of professional Dota.
This is pretty ironic, because as I mentioned, Riot's nepotistic system essentially protects the top half of NA LCS from dropping out, and conversely, the actual LCS winners have pretty much been the same few teams every split. On the world stage, neither NA nor EU LCS is relevant and Korea, the region that has been most successful essentially rejected the LCS model for 2 seasons, with OGN doing their own shit.
On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
TBH, Dota is too competitive right now. Assume you could pick either LoL or Dota to play professionally. Dota is super high risk, but super high reward if you make it to the top 10 teams in the world. Otherwise, you face being kicked, disbanding, or worse. And this can all happen in a matter of weeks.
In contrast, even if you were a 40th placed team in the world (probably 8th place in your region), you'd still have the stability of a pay-check.
Again, this isn't true. The actual mobility of teams within LCS is a lot lower than you're saying, and the barrier to entry is actually much higher due to how the resources provided by Riot to teams in the LCS makes it difficult for amateur teams without those resources to break INTO the LCS via up-downs.
The only real success story of a team that "made it" that wasn't already a major player in the LoL scene is C9, and that's a team that was so good that they basically became the best team outside of Asia overnight.
On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
Third point: Variety of tournaments. Dota has a ton of tournaments. I'd personally say so many that I don't care. I would also like to add that it's so many that it's work to follow the pro Dota scene.
On the other hand, LoL has the one tournament to rule them all: the LCS. It attracts a shit-ton of viewers every single match. There's only one tournament to worry about, and only one tournament you need to know of. It is easy to care for the teams that you see on a regular basis. If you sample every scene in the upcoming year, you will consistently see FIFTY teams playing every week, each of them attracting hundreds upon thousands of viewers. Dota will have a ton of teams, but most will disband, a lot will reshuffle, but in the end, it's the same 5-6 teams that make it to the play-offs, and it's the same 2-3 teams that take 1st place.
Oversaturation is a phase. LoL went through this phase late season 2 as well. LCS system was a way out of it, but it's not the only way (as other Esports have shown). It's not a permanent state, but it's up to the community to grow out of it. It does not have to be forced.
On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
The LCS casters are spot-on. They don't bullshit, they don't give crap opinions. They stick to facts. Furthermore, the way they deliver their lines control hype and tempo in their casting is like nothing else. The way they hand over to their co-casters is flawless. They prep for hours before every play-day, so they come in with the right talking points when it comes to drafts, comfort picks, playstyles, etc during Drafting phase, and low-action moments in the game.
lmao
If you think this is true of Rivington or Quikshot, you either aren't paying attention or don't know enough about LoL.
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
The OP is a whole lot very subjective feelings presented as facts.
|
United States47024 Posts
Also, if you think DotA's roster swap was chaotic, you haven't followed the LoL Korea->China roster changes of the last few months.
|
On December 22 2014 18:21 dizzy101 wrote:
Your post is exaggerated, and you don't seem to be able to able to stick to one topic (it goes from tournament models, to financial security, to caster bashing). But, ignoring all that and addressing the main point, the reply is: Valve doesn't want to be in the tournament-running business. As they say again and again, they want to provide a game, and they want to provide tools that allow others to run tournaments. The only exception they make is the International.
And if you read my post, you'd realize that your "reply" is a reply to nothing. I haven't asked anywhere "why does Valve not adopt the LCS model".
My question is taking into account all the pro's of the LCS model, would it be a good thing for Dota as well?
My stance is that given these pros, Valve "should" adopt it regardless of whether they "want to" or not.
All I'm after is discussion, not answers.
On December 22 2014 19:31 TheYango wrote:
Also, if you think DotA's roster swap was chaotic, you haven't followed the LoL Korea->China roster changes of the last few months.
At least the role swap was during pre-Season, not throughout the entire year.
On December 22 2014 19:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
The LCS casters are spot-on. They don't bullshit, they don't give crap opinions. They stick to facts. Furthermore, the way they deliver their lines control hype and tempo in their casting is like nothing else. The way they hand over to their co-casters is flawless. They prep for hours before every play-day, so they come in with the right talking points when it comes to drafts, comfort picks, playstyles, etc during Drafting phase, and low-action moments in the game. lmao If you think this is true of Rivington or Quikshot, you either aren't paying attention or don't know enough about LoL.
I think you're intelligent enough to understand it was a generalisation of LCS casters as a whole. And if I recall, Riv is more of a "color caster" than an analyst, and I honestly don't remember the last time Quikshot said falsehoods on stream other than being critical of players.
|
|
|
I admit that I watch Dota only once a year (During TI). And I really like the idea of there being a beginner's cast. The LCS does not have that. I watch a lot more LoL so I understand what's happening a lot easier but for example with the recent patches I was wishing there was a beginner's cast because it feels like a lot has changed.
|
Why are you comparing viewer counts with a game that has 30x more players playing? Does that even make sense?
|
I would also like to add that it's so many that it's work to follow the pro Dota scene.
Just like playing pretty much any online (steam or otherwise) game. Especially those with "F2P" concepts. Dota isn't different. It's an effective business strategy to get people addicted and that's what they do. Incentives ("achievements", "upgrades", ...) left and right. Why would a fun game have to incentivize players to play it?
When you sit down and look at the mess, it's mostly work. Every "achievement" type of game is made to be addictive, but to me, most new games are engineered this way and it sickens me.
|
Will just say as somoene who follows both games, the LoL commentators are not good in any way shape or form. They constantly get things wrong, don't understand the game at a deeper level (not that most DOTA ones do either but ..) and add pretty fake hype imo.
|
Korea (South)11232 Posts
On December 22 2014 19:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
The most obvious is viewer count. Every single LCS match easily reaches TI-level numbers, and usually more. Let's compare this to Dota, where the group stages of The International are usually only able to hit half the numbers for your average LCS match. The numbers have to do with the popularity of the game itself, and very little to do with the business model. If I recall correctly, TI actually gets MORE stream views relative to the size of DotA's playerbase than Worlds does (that is, a higher percentage of the DotA playerbase watched TI--Worlds just gets larger raw numbers because the general interest in LoL is higher thanks to its popularity as a game). Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
Secondly, the teams. Name me 8 teams from each region in Dota that are currently "in the spotlight" right now. That's NA, EU, China and SEA. Can't do it? Thought so.
In comparison, LCS guarantees 8 teams per region (now expanding to 10 teams in the upcoming year) to have their fair share of the spotlight. This attracts sponsors, attracts a fanbase, and assists in creating a fan-to-team rapport. "Their fair share" is a pretty positive way of spinning the fact that Riot keeps mediocre teams that aren't remotely competitive "in the spotlight" due to the ridiculously biased format. In 5 splits of NA LCS (Spring/Summer 2013, Spring/Summer 2014, upcoming 2015 Spring), 4 teams have been in every split, and 1 team that came on Summer 2013 has been on every split thereafter. A format that purportedly puts more teams in the spotlight has only really ever had 2-3 spots every season for a new team to shine. What's more, of these 5 teams, 4 are mediocre-to-trash level teams that have not been remotely competitive in international events at an point in either season, and are only even in LCS at all because they aren't shitty ENOUGH to lose to the 11th best team in the region (and because they had popular players since before LCS existed so it's in Riot's interest to keep them all in LCS)--the LCS up-down format heavily favors teams that are already in, and the financial resources offered by Riot creates a disparity between the mediocre LCS teams and the top amateur teams that creates a HIGHER barrier to entry into top level play. Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
Now, some people enjoy watching the number of reshuffles for every Dota team. Some people like the fact that Dota is a "do or die" world. But as a viewer, seeing the same 5-6 teams taking the prize money in every single tournament is boring, old, and honestly is a disincentive for younger teams to enter the hypercompetitive world of professional Dota. This is pretty ironic, because as I mentioned, Riot's nepotistic system essentially protects the top half of NA LCS from dropping out, and conversely, the actual LCS winners have pretty much been the same few teams every split. On the world stage, neither NA nor EU LCS is relevant and Korea, the region that has been most successful essentially rejected the LCS model for 2 seasons, with OGN doing their own shit. Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
TBH, Dota is too competitive right now. Assume you could pick either LoL or Dota to play professionally. Dota is super high risk, but super high reward if you make it to the top 10 teams in the world. Otherwise, you face being kicked, disbanding, or worse. And this can all happen in a matter of weeks.
In contrast, even if you were a 40th placed team in the world (probably 8th place in your region), you'd still have the stability of a pay-check. Again, this isn't true. The actual mobility of teams within LCS is a lot lower than you're saying, and the barrier to entry is actually much higher due to how the resources provided by Riot to teams in the LCS makes it difficult for amateur teams without those resources to break INTO the LCS via up-downs. The only real success story of a team that "made it" that wasn't already a major player in the LoL scene is C9, and that's a team that was so good that they basically became the best team outside of Asia overnight. Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
Third point: Variety of tournaments. Dota has a ton of tournaments. I'd personally say so many that I don't care. I would also like to add that it's so many that it's work to follow the pro Dota scene.
On the other hand, LoL has the one tournament to rule them all: the LCS. It attracts a shit-ton of viewers every single match. There's only one tournament to worry about, and only one tournament you need to know of. It is easy to care for the teams that you see on a regular basis. If you sample every scene in the upcoming year, you will consistently see FIFTY teams playing every week, each of them attracting hundreds upon thousands of viewers. Dota will have a ton of teams, but most will disband, a lot will reshuffle, but in the end, it's the same 5-6 teams that make it to the play-offs, and it's the same 2-3 teams that take 1st place. Oversaturation is a phase. LoL went through this phase late season 2 as well. LCS system was a way out of it, but it's not the only way (as other Esports have shown). It's not a permanent state, but it's up to the community to grow out of it. It does not have to be forced. Show nested quote +On December 22 2014 18:08 TheKindlyOne wrote:
The LCS casters are spot-on. They don't bullshit, they don't give crap opinions. They stick to facts. Furthermore, the way they deliver their lines control hype and tempo in their casting is like nothing else. The way they hand over to their co-casters is flawless. They prep for hours before every play-day, so they come in with the right talking points when it comes to drafts, comfort picks, playstyles, etc during Drafting phase, and low-action moments in the game. lmao If you think this is true of Rivington or Quikshot, you either aren't paying attention or don't know enough about LoL.
1. point
The bigger a game gets the more casual players will you get who only play the game because friends of them play it. They dont really care about the pro scene and therefore will never watch it.
2. point
regarding the lcs system. OGN switched to the LCS team to offer more stability and allow growth for the smaller teams. Korea has only one team who won it twice. This season a lot of new teams made it into the LCS so in particular the low level range of teams can change easily.
3. point
I dont like to talk about casters because most of the time its personal taste but the LCS casters arent perfect but they know at least the names of the players etc.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
I remember totalbiscuit once spoke about how it's silly to look at pure viewer numbers. He pointed to the SC2 scene, where SC2 has a much higher viewer to player ratio compared to League.
|
I don't watch LoL but based on what I'm reading it seems like there is more stability in the teams. Doesn't that make it a bit easier to remember the names of the players and who they are? In Dota you frequently have pubstar standins that haven't made a name for themselves yet show up in pro matches.
|
It's fine to dream of an LCS-type system for Dota and I think it would be an improvement in a lot of ways, but IMO the ultimate problem will be "who gets to be a winner?" At this point we've had a few years of letting the community "manage" the scene and there are entrenched interests all over the place (BTS, DC, JD, SLTV, D2L, DL, etc.) and upcoming interests trying to make space for themselves (Dota Pit, etc.) If Valve decides they want to uproot all that and make one unified system, you better believe the salt will fly as people have their efforts ignored or destroyed. I really don't think Valve wants to make those decisions.
Further, Valve is not equipped to take on a challenge like that. They are (at least nominally) a hierarchy-free company where people can choose what they work on from day to day, and there are a huge number of projects outside of Dota to attract their attention. Running a year-round structure like LCS takes a large dedicated staff that almost certainly doesn't exist at Valve today. Riot's been a company that deals only with LOL from the beginning.
Also, and this is more of a personal taste thing, but I like the DIY nature of the Dota scene. It's nice to have tournaments with different production feel instead of the same thing year-round, and the nature of Dota casting vs LOL casting is not something I'd like to lose. Watching LOL I find the casting very professional but forced or "fake" if you will. There are casters in Dota with the same problem, but on the whole I prefer the Dota feel.
So, yeah, the problems with the Dota scene definitely exist, but I would rather see the existing scene have a chance to solve it before the 800lb. Valve gorilla uproots everything and implements a unified structure. Things aren't so dire that we need to race to that conclusion just yet.
Also, in before that one doofus from the EE blog thread comes in and accuses you of being a statist
|
On December 22 2014 19:43 TheKindlyOne wrote:
And if you read my post, you'd realize that your "reply" is a reply to nothing. I haven't asked anywhere "why does Valve not adopt the LCS model".
My question is taking into account all the pro's of the LCS model, would it be a good thing for Dota as well?
My stance is that given these pros, Valve "should" adopt it regardless of whether they "want to" or not.
All I'm after is discussion, not answers.
You have to think more about if it's possible to get to a situation like LCS without Valve forcing it. Can someone else do this while using Dota as the game? Is it possible? Could some of the current tournaments and leagues work together and build something similar themselves for example? Or could one organizer get super large, crush everyone else and then run something similar by themselves?
I feel it's pointless to involve Valve at all in your discussion. The way Valve currently is, they simply don't (want to) work like Riot and won't do LCS. I only have vague ideas why it's like this, but you should watch some of the videos of Steam Dev Days presentations that were uploaded. There were presentations about game building and community and communication stuff from Valve members themselves, and it's super interesting. It seems they intentionally keep their whole teams tiny and not split into different sections, so this means they do not have a group that deals with only community stuff for a game and could do something like LCS.
|
|
|
I don't see why oversaturation should be fixed by having just one long running tournament to rule them all when we could have simply have the current tournaments spaced out not to interfere with each other, while lasting less, in order to have some breathing room and time to build hype in between them. People would put greater importance on matches if we had was just one tournament at a time, not 3-4 simultaneously, at any point of the year. The tournament schedules do not have to be forced by Valve either, it's either on organisers to discuss it between them or teams to finally stop participating in those tournaments not willing to adapt. Hopefully the player association that we heard rumors about lately will be a step in the right direction.
Personally, from what I've seen (not that much, admittedly), I think CS:GO has the best tournament system at the moment: there are a few majors a year, which is what everyone cares about, then there are some smaller international lans that still bring top teams and only after that there are the online tournaments, which play a smaller part than in Dota.
But having just one long running tournament be incredibly boring to me, in LoL it's either you do good in LCS or you're irrelevant as a competitor. It's worse than Dota's TI, because that one takes way less time and leaves space for other tournaments during the year. You'll still have Dreamhacks, ESL's or Starladder throughout the year, which even though are not even close to TI's importance, top teams will still play in without because they're not forced to spend months playing this single tournament that the developer is organising.
Having more tournaments is way more interesting, it allows for more teams to make a mark, it allows teams to fail in one and come back strong in another, it creates interesting storylnes, there's simply more diversity all around. I remember at one point when NaVi was absolutely crushing everyone in the West and was the only team in the region that could match up the chinese giants, yet they had never managed to win Dreamhack. They also lost to PGG+4 in a Starladder final once. EG also didn't manage to win Dreamhack until recently, despite being the best Western team for a while. Things like this are why big, separate tournaments are interesting.
|
Valve does not necessarily need to organize everything.
I would like to see more structure in the scene as well, I agree that it currently feels oversaturated and messy.
I believe Valve could help solving this by doing the following:
Name 4-6 tournaments that will be the official ones which count as qualifiers for TI invite (and set certain standards as to format, rules, schedule,etc, they have to follow).
Then you can have these major tournaments (lets call them Tier 1 tournaments), which will attract all top teams during a largely second-party organized regular season. And then in summer you will have the TI "Superbowl" closing the year out.
At the same time, there can be Tier-2 tournaments, which will not be taken into account for the TI invite, but they can have more freedom when it comes to format. If the scene continues growing, these tier-2 tournaments can at some point serve also as qualifiers for the majors (lets say you have X slots at each major reserved for teams qualifying from less important tournaments, to give new teams a chance and a clear idea of how to start and get to the top + reserved slots for the top teams, updated each season).
One thing I liked about the GSL is the code-s, code-a, etc structure, that gives you a clear path as a player as to what you need to do to reach the highest levels.
|
To be perfectly honest, I like Dota's free for all, money matters, do or die tournament environment. It heats my blood. Though I may dibble a little in LCS streams and let Monte's voice soothe, it's to vanilla for me and I like the rowdy ruff house style of our Dota casters.
Also, the LCS system for Dota, a blind, a deaf, a cripple, a mute, and a baby will win TI first before that stuff ever works for Dota 2.
|
Tbh, you don't need legs to play dota
|
You're aware that the LCS costs a ridiculous amount of money, and is not close to self-sustaining yet? It might in the future, but there's a lot of risk there.
|
eh I'd rather not have the entire competitive scene be a tax write-off
|
nice yango made most of the points i wanted to make
On December 23 2014 03:03 Pooshlmer wrote:
You're aware that the LCS costs a ridiculous amount of money, and is not close to self-sustaining yet? It might in the future, but there's a lot of risk there.
the resulting advantages of more exposure and increased consumer (player) consumption aren't exactly tangible
it's like saying valve loses money by hosting TI
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 22 2014 21:17 Chexx wrote:
1. point
The bigger a game gets the more casual players will you get who only play the game because friends of them play it. They dont really care about the pro scene and therefore will never watch it.
A bigger game still naturally has more viewers.
On December 22 2014 21:17 Chexx wrote:
2. point
regarding the lcs system. OGN switched to the LCS team to offer more stability and allow growth for the smaller teams. Korea has only one team who won it twice. This season a lot of new teams made it into the LCS so in particular the low level range of teams can change easily.
I know this, but I'm not bringing it up because anything anyone says about the new OGN format being successful is speculation. 6 months from now, we can talk about how successful it's been. Until then, as you pointed out, OGN's had MORE tournament winner diversity than either LCS, despite using OGN's own traditional tournament format, which runs counter to the OP's argument that the LCS system fosters growth and diversity of tournament winners.
Personally, I think OGN's actually done a better job than LCS of fostering my interest in the 5th-10th best teams in its respective region, but that's probably partly my bias and open-mindedness toward the Korean region relative to NA/EU.
On December 22 2014 21:17 Chexx wrote:
3. point
I dont like to talk about casters because most of the time its personal taste but the LCS casters arent perfect but they know at least the names of the players etc.
There's wider variance in caster quality in DotA, but LCS has a better average caster quality because they at least try to throw out the shit ones (the ones like Rivington are again there because of Riot's nepotism--he's been casting for them since way before LCS and they aren't going to fire him even though he's a shit caster). That doesn't mean the LCS system MAKES better casters. Once DotA TOs start being more critical about their choices of casters, we'll see DotA casters stepping up their game too.
|
On December 23 2014 03:14 andyrau wrote:nice yango made most of the points i wanted to make Show nested quote +On December 23 2014 03:03 Pooshlmer wrote:
You're aware that the LCS costs a ridiculous amount of money, and is not close to self-sustaining yet? It might in the future, but there's a lot of risk there. the resulting advantages of more exposure and increased consumer (player) consumption aren't exactly tangible it's like saying valve loses money by hosting TI
Riot's 2014 revenue is claimed to be ~1 billion USD in 2014. If that's roughly true, the marketing cost of lcs is a rounding error for them.
|
People also overplay the shuffle stuff.
Big roster changes occurs after TI and during New Year/Chinese NY. Besides that you only see the occasional player shifting around. No team swaps 3 players after those phases.
|
Enh. This post is so subjective and full of straw-men and poorly-thought-out arguments that despite it being a subject I'm very interested in I don't know if it's something I can engage with.
|
I feel much the same, and if there was any debate to be had, it really looks like OP's major points have already been shut down. I like that DotA has a player-driven market, and I'm not really confident something else would objectively be better.
On December 22 2014 21:17 Chexx wrote:
1. point
The bigger a game gets the more casual players will you get who only play the game because friends of them play it. They dont really care about the pro scene and therefore will never watch it.
Had to comment on this, though - the reverse is actually true. I haven't played LoL in... two years? Possibly more? But I've watched LCS finals since then, not because I'm suddenly interested in LCS, but because amongst my network of gamer buddies, almost everyone will be watching and talking about it. It's like a popular TV series... Not everyone watches The Walking Dead because they fucking love zombies, but people will watch it because their friend or coworker is inevitably going to ask "Hey did you see the latest walking dead?" and having an experience to bond over -feels good-.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
