Xeris Profile Blog Joined July 2005 Iran 17683 Posts #1



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



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



This article examines some of the problems of StarCraft 2, and suggests a few fixes or possible solutions. These are just my thoughts; they could be right or wrong. There has been a lot of discussion about the decline of StarCraft 2. Some people have a doom and gloom attitude and say the game is dying, others point to increased viewer numbers of major events compared to a year ago and say, "no the game isn't dying!"I am more in the middle. Viewer numbers overall seem to be relatively normalized, if not slightly higher than last year. I think however, this is just a reflection of the eSports community as a whole broadening in number. There is no doubt that there has been a decline in players; a majority of low to mid tier North American and European players have quit the game, in addition to several high profile pro players leaving the competitive scene. While there does seem to be a cadre of younger European gamers breaking into the competitive scene, there are no American players that are currently doing this, which I feel is a terrible thing since it represents one of the largest markets.Below are a list of problems, some analysis, and some proposed solutions. Enjoy! What's the problem: StarCraft 2 is too personality driven. There is no longevity here because a player's career is short lived .



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



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



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



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



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



The "esports" structure of SC is very personality driven. The fact that it is guided by personality over skill has created a situation where there are no replacements for today's big names. When they go, so goes the popularity of the game. This has been exacerbated by Blizzard (and everyone) not putting a lot of emphasis on teams and rather focusing on purely individual events. I know SC is unlike a MOBA and it's not a 'team' game, but you can have team events in SC. Who will replace Stephano as the badass European that can challenge the best in the world? Who can replace IdrA or White-Ra or Sheth? There is no crop of players who people care about that is 'up and coming' to fill the void when these prominent personalities leave the competitive scene: and the reason they're leaving is in large part because they don't really enjoy the game. Sure people like IdrA and White-Ra are still around, but their relevance will diminish over time the farther removed they are from being competitors. Relying on casters/hosts to drive viewership is not a good long term model.A major LoL team like TSM could lose TheOddOne and suffer a momentary dip in popularity, but they would eventually replace him, and as long as his skill was world-class, he would develop a following and the team's net popularity would remain the same.I'm not trying to say that if there was a large American only tournament, new American stars would magically be born. What it would do however, is provide motivation for American players to dedicate time to the game and increase their skill level within the region and relative to the world population. Over time this may lead to the generation of local heroes and create a world tournament system that has the hype of the Olympics or World Cup, where once per year we can see the world's best fight on a truly global stage. What's the problem: There is an oversaturation of content which removes the gravity of Blizzard's official championship series. The lack of a "superbowl" type event hurts.



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



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





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





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



There was a really great article



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Where do we go from here



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



As someone who has been involved in this game at every level, from being a competitive player, tournament organizer, writer, administrator, manager, and promoter since the game was released in 1998, I am hopeful that Blizzard will eventually get things right. I'm aware that WCS culminates in the highest point playersduking it out in a global finals at Blizzcon. The problem however is that there's nothing aside from the prize pool that will differentiate the WCS Global Finals from Season 1, Seaosn 2, or Season 3.For example, look at the WCS Season 1 final player list:Now let's look at the WCS Season 2 final player list:The Season 3 finals and the Global finals are going to look almost identical. Maybe 1 non Korean, and 7-8 of the top Koreans. So basically, nothing changes. The stage is bigger and there's more money on the line but otherwise there is no difference. I will predict that the viewership for the global finals won't be significantly different than any of the other Season finals and the reason is: there's nothing to get peoplehyped about it.In addition to this, there are a handful of European LAN events that feature a similar looking player list, with more Europeans sprinkled in. Even though the WCS system is designed to have a penultimate 'global' champion, its very format is its undoing. The fact that the global champion looks no different than the Season 1, 2, or 3 champion devalues the final event.Yes, Korea would have the highest viewership. Regions like China and Europe however, would have equally large, if not higher viewership than Korea. People care about those regions. North America is the proverbial odd man out here - the skill level is lower, there isn't as much interest. In a year however, that may change. There has been no sustained or concentrated effort to generate interest in American-only events and American players not named Suppy, HuK, or Scarlett.IPL1 broke away from being American-only after one event. Shoutcraft America stopped after one event: one-off events are not enough. Blizzard is really the only entity that can run sustained and continuous high-prized events in North America and really should do so to develop this segment of the population. It will help their competitive scene as well as the casual one.Riot's idea here is really great, if I understand it correctly. Pro teams are restricted to only compete in the LCS. They are unable to play in 'amateur' events like the MCS, MLG Invitationals, and the like. This is great because it gives amateur teams like Denial eSports the opportunity to win ~$10,000 in tournaments. If Blizzard restricted pro team players to only compete in WCS or other major events it would give more players an opportunity to win money, as well as create scarcity.If you can see Flash stream every day, it makes his tournament appearances less interesting; if Flash plays in every tournament, it makes things stale. If you know you will only get to see Flash play in the WCS, you'll damn well be tuning in to watch him play because you won't get another opportunity.This has been addressed a million times so I won't really go into too much detail. When you logged into battle.net in Brood War, you're instantly placed into a chat channel. It was the main focus of the client, it was centered on the screen and large. Game play options were a small right sidebar. Now, the game options are front-and-center, and chat channels and windows are cumbersome popups. It isn't intuitive, appealing to use, or inviting.If you're a trueyou probably wouldn't even think about, or know how to join a channel or message a friend. And there are so many options, you wouldn't know where to start. Being placed in Brood War USA-1 is easy, convenient, and instantly can get you talking to people and make a user feel like he's part of a community.Right now games, especially ladder are the main focus of the battle.net client. I'm guessing that as a result of the popularity of Brood War as a competitive game, Blizzard thought "let's make ladder the main focus of the new Battle.net since that's what our users care about." Bad call. Blizzard either has forgotten or doesn't know that the community features of the original Battle.net are what gave rise to its competitive scene.I remember being invited to the [i'm] clan chat back in 98-99 and feeling really great; or when two clans would meet in a chat for a clan war, or social channels like Ladder Challenges or X17 being a breeding ground for trash talk and competition. The competitive arose out of the social. SC2's Battle.net tried to start with the competitive and build the social later, but in the process lost sight of its casual fanbase and didn't do much to keep the competitive gamers around: many notable/semi notable NA players have quit and are now playing League of Legends.There was a really great article HERE that discusses the issue of why Brood War and StarCraft 2 are different games. It hinges on Day9's analysis of 'frisbee vs baseball'. Unfortunately for StarCraft 2, the 'frisbee' is more fun and exciting to watch. What I mean by this is, using the information provided in the aforementioned article, battles in StarCraft 2 are much less interesting than in Brood War. The game aspects that make StarCraft 2 insanely difficult to master and challenging go largely unappreciated by viewers.For example: the positioning and posturing of two armies prior to a battle are absolutely key in StarCraft 2, because once the battle starts, little can be done to change the outcome. This posturing however is incredibly hard to translate into excitement on the part of the viewer. StarCraft 2 battles feature things blowing up, and blobs disappearing. There is much less micro and "play" potential in StarCraft 2 because of how its pathing and units are designed.In Brood War, actual battles are much more exciting, and I feel as if these are the lynchpin of the viewer experience. Seeing an intensely micro'd battle, or a player with a smaller force taking down a player with a bigger force because of superior unit control and micro is exciting. Knowing that Brood War is more difficult to execute gives the viewer more appreciation for incredible marine splits, storms, and multi-tasking in battle. It is easy to see the impact of the player directly on the battlefield because you know that every action is manually performed by the user, while StarCraft 2's battles are essentially simulations: there is comparatively little the player can do to impact the outcome of a battle in StarCraft 2.A huge part of what Riot does is eSports. Almost everyone who plays the game knows about the competitive side because the whole company agenda pushes it. It makes sense for Riot and helps drive sales. People see their favorite pro player use X skin or play Y champion, and they want to buy it, too. This doesn't exist in SC2, but there are other ways Blizzard can introduce eSports to its casual player base.Advertising tournaments/events on the main battle.net page is only a small, and relatively new step Blizzard has taken. Blizzcon is a huge marketing tool for eSports, since every fan of Blizzard knows about Blizzcon but may not know about eSports. This is why making Blizzardand more epic is important: creating an "olympic like" WCS event will help here. A casual fan will absolutely never be able to understand that these 16 Koreans are the best players in the world. A casual fan would say "why are there 16 Koreans here." It is much easier to understand and explain to a casual fan, "Here's the American champion, the Chinese champion, the European champion, and the Korean champion and they're all fighting to be crowned world champion." That makes more sense and is logical. A casual fan of the game can take that knowledge, sit down, and cheer for the American to win because he's American, or the Chinese player because he's Chinese, and so on. Otherwise, it's "pick a random Korean and go." Since Blizzcon is the primary marketing tool of playing Blizzard titles competitively, the events at Blizzard need to be easier for a casual fan to understand and become attached to.Furthermore, eSports should be given more of a focus at Blizzcon. WoW is definitely the largest attraction at the event, and it makes sense because it is Blizzard's biggest money maker. Giving SC2 a center stage and bigger presence however, can help to attract new fans to sit, watch, and become absorbed.Another idea is to have instructional and highlight videos embedded into the main client of Battle.net, similarly to how Riot often displays videos in its client. Video titles should have generic and enticing enough names for a casual fan to be interested in clicking, and eventually get hooked.There is no easy answer to this question, and life seems pretty grim. It's as if Blizzard is victim to its own hubris, thinking that no game could challenge its position as eSports leader. One of the biggest problems (game play) is unsolvable. HoTS is definitely a better game than WoL, but the inherent aspects of the game engine can't be overcome by balance or new units, I fear Brood War will always be more exciting to watch than StarCraft 2. Blizzard can however, adjust its eSports policy to improve things. It remains to be seen however, if it will do that. 2013 does represent a step in the right direction in terms of the company devoting more funds to eSports, however its practices are largely flawed.As someone who has been involved in this game at every level, from being a competitive player, tournament organizer, writer, administrator, manager, and promoter since the game was released in 1998, I am hopeful that Blizzard will eventually get things right. twitter.com/xerislight -- follow me~~