This is why i watch top level RTS Players

I think the feeling everyone has is that SC:BW really was a huge fucking deal, and everyone was expecting it to explode when WoL hit (which it really didn't).

Read this reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/11m21k/starcraft_2_will_be_dead_before_legacy_of_the/

Sponsor/prize money has remained basically the same over the last few years; sponsors notice that the average gamer doesn't really have that much purchasing power, and thus the ROI for sponsoring events sucks balls.

WoL sucked ass for the casual player (ladder anxiety, hard to find custom games etc), which in turn hurt the viewer numbers and recruitment for the competitive scene.

I'll use myself as an example; I've watched SC:2 streams/vods for about 2 years, but I've played 20 max games in WoL. I guess that's how most people feel.

With all of this being said, they have made some game changing stuff with HotS. Achievements (more of them), more portraits, unlockable skins, levels and most importantly; they made unranked matchmaking.

For the first time ever, a noob like me could enter matchmaking to relax, improve and have a good time. For some reason, when your above a certain age, sitting down and grinding matches in a new game to learn the ropes whilst being ranked on a ladder just makes it to much of a hassle to deal with. For me, unranked matchmaking changed that. The fact that I can play some games and JUST focus on my macro without caring if I win or lose is just brilliant.

Hoping to see less people with ladder anxiety out there during HotS.

he is onto something with the arcade thingie, maybe also with the sponsors (can't really tell, because i do not have any numbers from the sponsors as to how they value their investment)...

but ladder anxiety? if you dont want to lose your precious ladder spot, go play basic. worked perfectly even without the "unranked matchmaking" (although it has been improved). "no risk, no fun"...
why do people here not play the scheldt all the time? because they want to play competetive. why does SNF not have scheldt games? because nobody wants to watch that.

"ladder anxiety" is just another way of saying you can't take a loss and learn from it. if you didn't care about winning or losing, you wouldn't care about your ladder spot. if you do care about winning to the extent that you don't ladder anymore, why not just go play against an easy AI? you'll prolly win every game... i can tell you why: people want to win against other people, and not an AI. and usually people also like to show off (with their ladder ranking as an e-peen equivalent).

we're living in a competetive world, where pretty much everything is a competition... encouraging things like "ladder anxiety" is the wrong way to go. teach people to deal with the losses and learn from them.

Everyone who playes multiplayer games is competitive, otherwise you'd play tetris or campaign instead. That's also part of the point I'm trying to make.

It's easier to get into matchmaking when you got the option to play matchmaking games who actually doesn't matter (rank-wise). This is why most people have a hobby; they want to relax and do something that doesn't constitute to your life's list of achievements.

Losing sucks, let's face it. I have a better time losing a game where I played good and my opponent played better than me, than I have losing a game where I sucked, messed up my build order or did something else stupid, because I will always TRY to win. This goes for improving as well; if you want to try out a new strat, wouldn't you do it in a setting where you didn't actually have to focus on winning, but could focus on perfecting the strategy/new build instead?

Point is that the unranked matchmaking system makes getting into SC2 a lot easier for casual and new people. It probably also makes more people play ladder games since you can kick back and relax instead of feeling the pressure of having to be competitive all the time.

Example; Having a run and participating in a marathon is 2 completely different things. I relax while I'm having my run, but I'm competitive when I'm participating in my marathon and will always care about what place I end up in.

I don't think starcraft 2 or "e-sports" will die per se but rather they got used to big money being thrown around too quickly.

A common problem with the mainstream "e-sports" but I don't think enthusiasts or players are willing to take a step down in production values and prize pots.

Every game needs a solid foundation to their community so that if your game gets picked up by one of the big leagues but then gets dropped it will survive without the money.

I might add it's extremely naive to believe that "e-sports" will replace regular sports in the near future, it's going to take a few more generations as people's attitudes change.

I think the starcraft community should be happy they have a very large community and have these sick events.

we're living in a competetive world, where pretty much everything is a competition... encouraging things like "ladder anxiety" is the wrong way to go. teach people to deal with the losses and learn from them.

that is a self esteem issue and goes way beyond the scope of "post sales support" for the game. self esteem has to be improved upon by the person themselves and is rarely a simple procedure to follow.

the way the match maker is set up is decent... over the long haul you're going to win 50% of your games... if some guy can't deal with losing 50% of his games he needs to see a shrink.

Starcraft still has no cover system, they removed high ground advantage. Now that the pathfinding is so good, micro is just who can cast spells the fastest, which is just more APM and not more strategy since it's usually obvious where to cast your spells (there can be occasional exceptions to this). BW still superior.

Starcraft still has no cover system, they removed high ground advantage. Now that the pathfinding is so good, micro is just who can cast spells the fastest, which is just more APM and not more strategy since it's usually obvious where to cast your spells (there can be occasional exceptions to this). BW still superior.

10 years later.. everything is "obvious".




there is another version of this where a stim packed Marauder comes flying into a zerg ball from off screen ... the Zerg guy has no clue where the HS MIssiles are going because nothing on screen is red.

when gas conservation is important ... the Marauder version is better.. .and you can even totally flub it and its no big deal.

where to redirect Widow Mine shots is not immediately obvious...

these are just two small details... HotS is no where near close to being "obvious".

its attendance peaked at only 348795589374598738 fans and is now slowly declining..
within 5,000 years.. baseball is done!

you say you want proof.. here is ur proof....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2011/09/07/mlb-faces-fourth-straight-attendance-decline/

i chose the "baseball is dying" as a joke on the "starcraft is dying" thing.

and if a game always needs sequels how is it AoE2 is getting a graphical improvement only.. and a re-release.

unlike other forms of video games... strategy titles live a long long long time.

u can still find Atari 800 MULE competitive communities.
i mean we're talking 32 kilobytes of nonstop action here!
the guy that made the game is dead.

Is AoE2 at its peak?

hell no.

Does the mlb account for all baseball fans world wide?

hell no.

Sure it has stagnated a bit in the states, but growth world wide has only increased. And that does not account for the TV ratings and deals that have recently been signed.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/24/4029709/baseball-tv-deals-growing-more.html

I saw a similar story from a better source recently, cannot find it though.

And while baseball is growing sc2 is declining, albeit slowly.

Games need sequels to grow, other wise they are played until they are technologically out of date(really good game), or in some cases until the number of people dwindles to 0(great game)

Games dont necessarily need sequels to grow. Thats just the business mdoel in our current generation. Forget about videogames for a second, lets talk Pure Game Design:

-Monopoly has many redesigned, but the classic is still King.
-Risk has many redesigns, the classic is still King.
-Chess... you get the point.

The reason why games need sequels? Because they needed to make money and fast. So they offered something new every time. Also, videogames are expensive to balance, because of usually irrelevant stuff to the gameplay (visuals, audio, story, bugs, glitches).

A game like Chess in its current form, has stayed relatively the same for many many years. Videogames are NOT sports. They are making sports out of them, but a game and a sport are not necessarily the same. Thats why its so hard.

If SC2 declines, it is only because they allow it to decline due to markets, not because of popularity. Baseball/Football/Volleyball has a whole different set of guidelines and elements that make them very different to Stacrraft or LoL. The only thing they truly share is the name, because even the competitive spirit is different.

Sure it has stagnated a bit in the states, but growth world wide has only increased. And that does not account for the TV ratings and deals that have recently been signed.

you missed the point here...
if we assume a giant game like baseball is "in decline"
as baseball was from 1995 to 2000..
does this mean it is doomed for all eternity... no.

baseball has also similar peaks and valleys in places like the Dominican Republic and come back strong.

why ?
because baseball at its core.. its a great game.
and it can withstand setbacks due to player strikes, steroid scandals...
the 1920 black sox betting scandal... etc

relating this to video gamse... just examine the competitive history of NHL '94 hoceky.
its been declared "dead" many times... it keeps coming back.

at this point the only competitive community that comes close to the NHL '94 community would be EA's latest iteration of the franchise.. NHL'13.. and even then... its NHL '94 all the way.

and i hate to break it to you but the Starcraft competitive community is larger than the EA NHL competitive community by at least 4 orders of magnitude...

in short... the kids are alright.

You guys do not seem to get that baseball, chess, monopoly, and whatever else you want to cite are not in fact video games. The technology of a big wooden stick, a baseball, and leather gloves are about as advanced as its ever going to get. Any advances make the game unsafe(aluminum bats) or make it too easy (aluminum bats). Video games are technology, and do get outclassed. NHL 94 is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure there are a couple of other examples similar to this, but there is a much bigger list of great games that are barely, if at all, played today. So please cut the straw man arguments.

Starcraft 2 is not dying quickly, but it is still dying. The coh community is dying, and will be a lot smaller when coh 2 comes out. But it will live on in that game, and possibly in a third installment later on.

Starcraft 2 is not dying quickly, but it is still dying. The coh community is dying, and will be a lot smaller when coh 2 comes out. But it will live on in that game, and possibly in a third installment later on.

NHL '94 is dying
its been dying for 18 years.

NHL '94 is the opposite of a straw man... its a good Hockey game.

its still here.... from 1995 to about 2006 EA kept trying to kill it. handing out cease and desist orders like cotton candy... finally they gave up.

NHL '94 is still here despite EA's best efforts to kill it.

so i think SC2 will be ok because i don't think Blizzard will pull the kind of crap EA did.

also...

the "technology" behind baseball, golf, and hockey is ever evolving.
NHL Hockey today is nothing like it was when the Atari 2600 was making Nathan Bushnell rich.

sports rise and fall in popularity all the time.
and the "tehcnology" that is making skaters faster and more nimble than ever before may be killing hockey at its top level... u see its causing brutal head injuries....

so tech levels do impact sports popularity.

18 months ago MLG drew 500,000 viewers.

2.6 million people tuned into MLG Dallas last weekend.
The signature title is STarcraft2.

Viewership between LoL and SC2 was approximately equal with SC2 eaking out a small lead.
Call of Duty garnered about 1/5 as many viewers as LoL and SC2.

If Starcraft2 is dying... this is a really really slow death.

HA HA HA HA!

EVERYTHING IS DYING

ALL IS FINITE

NOW STOP ARGUING

NHL '94 is dying
its been dying for 18 years.

NHL '94 is the opposite of a straw man... its a good Hockey game.

its still here.... from 1995 to about 2006 EA kept trying to kill it. handing out cease and desist orders like cotton candy... finally they gave up.

NHL '94 is still here despite EA's best efforts to kill it.

so i think SC2 will be ok because i don't think Blizzard will pull the kind of crap EA did.

also...

the "technology" behind baseball, golf, and hockey is ever evolving.
NHL Hockey today is nothing like it was when the Atari 2600 was making Nathan Bushnell rich.

sports rise and fall in popularity all the time.
and the "tehcnology" that is making skaters faster and more nimble than ever before may be killing hockey at its top level... u see its causing brutal head injuries....

so tech levels do impact sports popularity.

Straw man argument

is it really that hard to google something you do not understand?

You guys do not seem to get that baseball, chess, monopoly, and whatever else you want to cite are not in fact video games. The technology of a big wooden stick, a baseball, and leather gloves are about as advanced as its ever going to get. Any advances make the game unsafe(aluminum bats) or make it too easy (aluminum bats). Video games are technology, and do get outclassed. NHL 94 is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure there are a couple of other examples similar to this, but there is a much bigger list of great games that are barely, if at all, played today. So please cut the straw man arguments.

Starcraft 2 is not dying quickly, but it is still dying. The coh community is dying, and will be a lot smaller when coh 2 comes out. But it will live on in that game, and possibly in a third installment later on.

So you are saying sports are unaffected by technology?

-Advanced camera equipment allowing instant replays and challenges for games such as American Football. Modern protective equipment that is lighter, more resistant and comfortable, allowing for more aggressive play.

-Advanced camera systems/boundary systems to allow for extremely precise boundary recognition in Tennis for challenges.

-New artificial grass types in soccer fields. Teams even complained during the last world cup, that the game had changed.

-New fluid mixtures inside soccer balls, allowing for them to be lighter and thus, faster, more sensitive shots (and misses).

Also, I am sure that advanced gym equipment and nutriology have affected the performance of most sports.

Is this the same as videogames? You are right, it isn't, technology goes hand in hand with videogames. BUT, a well designed videogame lasts A LOT longer, with much lesser patching in comparison, than a rushed game.

Examples: Painkiller, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counterstrike 1.6. They've all been patched, because they are, at their core, pieces of technology with glitches (you don't get glitched and bugs in real life), but the gameplay and metagame remained largely the same. The metagame and even initial design of SC, SC:BW or WoL has changed dramatically in its short existance.

Im not saying this is a bad thing, I'm simply saying that games like SC are so unforgiving to newcomers at a competitive level, just like MOBA's, that I simply don't see them becoming more popular than sports in the short run.

RL sports and traditional games have a much higher utility value than a videogame at a competitive level and a much, much more forgiving learning curve.

So you are saying sports are unaffected by technology?

No. I am saying there no major technological advances in the games themselves, baseball specifically. Calls may be more accurate, but they were always supposed to be accurate.
Ideally, fields were perfectly maintained. It just was not possible before fake turf.

Accident, sorry.

Straw man argument

is it really that hard to google something you do not understand?

Blizzard's games don't reach their full power until the expansions are out and fully patched.

Starcraft2 has an expansion due out.

So declaring it is dying before its been fully born is ridiculous.

You do not know its full form.

Just as an example, KeSPA is experimenting with lower mineral and lower gas bases to reduce army sizes and make expanding a bigger part of the game.

No. I am saying there no major technological advances in the games themselves, baseball specifically. Calls may be more accurate, but they were always supposed to be accurate.
Ideally, fields were perfectly maintained. It just was not possible before fake turf.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

Hockey equipment is 1000X different from what it was 50 years ago. Goalies didn't even wear masks. Players didn't wear helmets. Then... from 1970 till now.. the equipment is way way different. Due to technological innovations Hockey is totally different and way faster. .... the skates are way better.

Golf equipment is 1000X different from 50 years ago. Hell, classic courses like Augusta have basically been distorted beyong recognizability.

NFL Football, equipment 1000X different and way more advanced allowing for harder collisions than ever before making brain injuries epidemic. Steroids have made the players completely different. 280 pound guys without an ounce of body fat running a 40 year dash in 4.4 seconds.. .etc.

you flat out have no clue dude.

Baseball is totally different because the players themselves are completely different. They are all on steroids making tendon and ligament injuries at epidemic proportions. 5 man rotations rather than 4 man rotations.. starters that never finish games and 34857897 specialist relief pitchers designed to only get out 1 guy in the line up...
aka Mark Zipchinski being sent in to get out Prince Fielder in every late game situation.

in Baseball they are using Maple bats rather than Ash bats. Due to new manufacturing processes it is now possible to create Maple bats which couldn't exist in 1970. Barry Bonds broke the home run record with a Maple bat.

the extremely high speed collisions now happening in hockey are causing parents to steer their children away from hockey due to the epidemic of head injuries.... that stuff didn't happen 30+ years ago.

pick a new topic

No. I am saying there no major technological advances in the games themselves, baseball specifically. Calls may be more accurate, but they were always supposed to be accurate.
Ideally, fields were perfectly maintained. It just was not possible before fake turf.

what r u talking about? there is no "perfect field".

they are steering away from "fake turf"
fields are never 'ideal'.

if a team has a couple of players taht are very good at laying down bunts then the groundskeeper lets the grass grow taller to give their home guys an advantage..

what height of grass is "perfect" for the infield?

LOL