Shiladie Profile Blog Joined January 2009 Canada 1627 Posts Last Edited: 2011-03-17 23:06:56 #1



There was recently a post made in the general SC2 forum about colossus being 'anti-hype'

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=201316



I agree with points he's making, but would like to expand on this to see if we can come up with a better understanding of hype in general, and thus how to increase it in the future of SC2



Hype is where you're excited and engaged by the game while you watch, high levels will have your adrenaline pumping and jumping out of your seat.

There are a number of things that can make a game interesting, first of all, I want to remove all pre-game and player hype, both of these are big aspects, and can turn an otherwise rather boring game into one where you're sitting on the edge of your seat. I would even say that these circumstances act as a multiplier on the hype surrounding in-game events.



An example would be watching your favorite player in 5th match of a Bo5 in the finals of the biggest tournament, throw in that they'll be getting their golden mouse if they win, or w/e. If the game is even marginally exciting you'll be very excited, if it's a nail-biter of a game, it gets even more-so.



So now let's remove all of that, what makes a game in itself exciting?

There are two primary themes that cause hype in a game:

- Displaying skill

- Taking Risks



These can then be broken down into the following sub categories:

--- Non-standard play, people deviating from the standard builds

--- Back and forth gameplay, Games are boring if the winner can be determined at the 8 minute mark

--- Close battles, goes with back and forth gameplay, being unable to call who will win a fight before it begins

--- feats of micro to turn a losing battle around, watching a micro based player pull off such feats is what Boxer has essentially built his career on.

--- Comebacks in general, seeing somebody claw their way out of a losing situation to come back and win, or at least come close to winning.

--- In depth strategy, when this is understood by the person watching, or explained by the observer/caster. This generally overlaps with non-standard play a little, but not all the time.



Now to go through these subcategories one at a time, and relate them back to the two core themes



Non-standard play

Standard play evolves because it is safe, it's what keeps you alive versus what the opponent is likely to do, and generally includes enough scouting to adapt if they aren't going standard as well. Doing a non-standard build is dangerous, a risk that the player is taking, banking on the other player being caught off-guard enough that it will do enough damage to be worth whatever the initial investment is. This generally revolves around harassment, but also includes going whole different army compositions in a hope that the other player has not practiced against that style nearly as much. This then spotlights the non-standard player's skill in executing the build, as well as the other player's ability to improvise a defence against said build.

Now, I touched on the subject of being able to do non-standard play in my previous blog, which highlighted the need for a higher defensive advantage to allow for a broader number of builds to be possible. That blog goes into further detail on why this is the case.



Back and forth gameplay

A game that allows players to lose battles, but not the game creates more opportunity for both players to show off their skill. A game that ends in a single push simply displays the ability to execute said push or the ability to defend it. In addition, players are far less likely to take any risks in the game, when they know it will all really come down to one big push. They will instead be as safe as they can in prep for that push, as any lost units can mean being unprepared to push or defend a push.

Terran matchups are in general a good example of back and forth gameplay, this is due to the high defensive advantage of terran, allowing for lost battles that don't end the game.



Feats of Micro

Marines vs banelings, blink stalkers in general, mutas picking off tanks while dodging marines. This is one of the biggest sources of excitement in a game, as it is the most direct and obvious display of skills that the observing person cannot replicate, and thus they know how difficult it is. Other displays of skill, such as macroing or strategy show in the long term, but nothing creates a more exciting moment in the game then when a player manages to micro something against the odds and win.



Comebacks

When an observer can very obviously see that there is an overwhelming advantage for one player, it is amazing to watch the other player claw their way back into the game. This is another very visibly obvious display of skill, and generally includes the use of other topics we've touched on here, as well as taking huge risks, in a hope they'll pay off. This along with people's general predisposition to favor an underdog, other factors aside, can create an excellent game to watch.



In Depth Strategy

Thinking ahead, tricking your opponent, playing mind-games; all of these and more. When a player shows off their depth of knowledge of the game in what they are doing in game. A lot of the time it can go by un-noticed, especially without commentators, but with commentators there to look for and explain the reasoning behind player's actions, we can get a better look at what each player is thinking, and how they each are trying to manipulate the other.

This comes out more in Bo5 of Bo7 games, but can still be seen in single games. There has been less of it so far in SC2, but in BW it was the mark of an S class player.



Now let's switch our attentions to how a player get's hyped, and why people become fans of a specific player. This area is a lot more nebulous, as there are a lot more influences coming into effect, but I'll touch on a few of the primary ones.



Gameplay

Displaying skill through the above mentioned methods will have people all over you. This is shown by players like Boxer, TLO, and marineking to a lesser extent, who like to do non-standard games and focus on micro. They also take risks, which don't always pay off, as shown by their unreliable performance in high end tournaments. yet despite this unreliable nature, they remain some of the most fun to watch.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have the reliable more standard players like Idra, MC or MVP, who gather far less casual fans, but instead draw the attention of the more hardcore crowd due to their in depth game analysis and their macro.

A third group, that overlaps both of the above, is those that are uncopy-able. where whatever they are doing, it is done to such a degree that other people simply can't come close to copying that style. This is seen most predominantly in players like Julyzerg.



Personality

There are a lot of players that are medium to good, that get a lot more attention then their gameplay warrants (not to say they arn't good though). This is due to their personality, and how they act. Big examples of this are FBH, Idra, and Destiny. Each are good players in their own right, but a lot of the attention they receive is not because of that skill, but because of their attitude. Watching destiny or idra's streams is a lot like watching nascar, while a few are watching for the race, the majority are there for the crashes (the spectacle)

As a result though, a lot more people will watch games by players like these.



Success

Straight up and obvious, people who win more gain more fans no matter how those games go, no need for more explanation here.





As we want SC2 to become an even bigger eSport, I think increasing the hype is a large factor of that. The player portion of this is being ramped up rather quickly, as the NASL is doing player app videos, as well as a number of other steps to increase the exposure of the players to their fans. The other side of things though is that the game needs to become more interesting. As we can see, deathballs and low defensive advantage both don't play towards any of the aspects shown to increase the hype of a game, in fact going contrary to them. This is why i believe we need a change; unfortunately, the change is unlikely to come from player adaption, as players will always do the best they can to win, not the best they can to create interesting games. This means that if the players cannot find a way to break free of these styles of play, I think Blizzard will need to address these concerns either in a patch, or in the next expansion.



(edit: this builds on a lot of themes from my previous 2 blogs, though I think it stands on it's own, some of the conclusions from them are assumed here)There was recently a post made in the general SC2 forum about colossus being 'anti-hype'I agree with points he's making, but would like to expand on this to see if we can come up with a better understanding of hype in general, and thus how to increase it in the future of SC2Hype is where you're excited and engaged by the game while you watch, high levels will have your adrenaline pumping and jumping out of your seat.There are a number of things that can make a game interesting, first of all, I want to remove all pre-game and player hype, both of these are big aspects, and can turn an otherwise rather boring game into one where you're sitting on the edge of your seat. I would even say that these circumstances act as a multiplier on the hype surrounding in-game events.An example would be watching your favorite player in 5th match of a Bo5 in the finals of the biggest tournament, throw in that they'll be getting their golden mouse if they win, or w/e. If the game is even marginally exciting you'll be very excited, if it's a nail-biter of a game, it gets even more-so.So now let's remove all of that, what makes a game in itself exciting?There are two primary themes that cause hype in a game:- Displaying skill- Taking RisksThese can then be broken down into the following sub categories:--- Non-standard play, people deviating from the standard builds--- Back and forth gameplay, Games are boring if the winner can be determined at the 8 minute mark--- Close battles, goes with back and forth gameplay, being unable to call who will win a fight before it begins--- feats of micro to turn a losing battle around, watching a micro based player pull off such feats is what Boxer has essentially built his career on.--- Comebacks in general, seeing somebody claw their way out of a losing situation to come back and win, or at least come close to winning.--- In depth strategy, when this is understood by the person watching, or explained by the observer/caster. This generally overlaps with non-standard play a little, but not all the time.Now to go through these subcategories one at a time, and relate them back to the two core themesStandard play evolves because it is safe, it's what keeps you alive versus what the opponent is likely to do, and generally includes enough scouting to adapt if they aren't going standard as well. Doing a non-standard build is dangerous, a risk that the player is taking, banking on the other player being caught off-guard enough that it will do enough damage to be worth whatever the initial investment is. This generally revolves around harassment, but also includes going whole different army compositions in a hope that the other player has not practiced against that style nearly as much. This then spotlights the non-standard player's skill in executing the build, as well as the other player's ability to improvise a defence against said build.Now, I touched on the subject of being able to do non-standard play in my previous blog, which highlighted the need for a higher defensive advantage to allow for a broader number of builds to be possible. That blog goes into further detail on why this is the case.A game that allows players to lose battles, but not the game creates more opportunity for both players to show off their skill. A game that ends in a single push simply displays the ability to execute said push or the ability to defend it. In addition, players are far less likely to take any risks in the game, when they know it will all really come down to one big push. They will instead be as safe as they can in prep for that push, as any lost units can mean being unprepared to push or defend a push.Terran matchups are in general a good example of back and forth gameplay, this is due to the high defensive advantage of terran, allowing for lost battles that don't end the game.Marines vs banelings, blink stalkers in general, mutas picking off tanks while dodging marines. This is one of the biggest sources of excitement in a game, as it is the most direct and obvious display of skills that the observing person cannot replicate, and thus they know how difficult it is. Other displays of skill, such as macroing or strategy show in the long term, but nothing creates a more exciting moment in the game then when a player manages to micro something against the odds and win.When an observer can very obviously see that there is an overwhelming advantage for one player, it is amazing to watch the other player claw their way back into the game. This is another very visibly obvious display of skill, and generally includes the use of other topics we've touched on here, as well as taking huge risks, in a hope they'll pay off. This along with people's general predisposition to favor an underdog, other factors aside, can create an excellent game to watch.Thinking ahead, tricking your opponent, playing mind-games; all of these and more. When a player shows off their depth of knowledge of the game in what they are doing in game. A lot of the time it can go by un-noticed, especially without commentators, but with commentators there to look for and explain the reasoning behind player's actions, we can get a better look at what each player is thinking, and how they each are trying to manipulate the other.This comes out more in Bo5 of Bo7 games, but can still be seen in single games. There has been less of it so far in SC2, but in BW it was the mark of an S class player.Now let's switch our attentions to how a player get's hyped, and why people become fans of a specific player. This area is a lot more nebulous, as there are a lot more influences coming into effect, but I'll touch on a few of the primary ones.Displaying skill through the above mentioned methods will have people all over you. This is shown by players like Boxer, TLO, and marineking to a lesser extent, who like to do non-standard games and focus on micro. They also take risks, which don't always pay off, as shown by their unreliable performance in high end tournaments. yet despite this unreliable nature, they remain some of the most fun to watch.On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have the reliable more standard players like Idra, MC or MVP, who gather far less casual fans, but instead draw the attention of the more hardcore crowd due to their in depth game analysis and their macro.A third group, that overlaps both of the above, is those that are uncopy-able. where whatever they are doing, it is done to such a degree that other people simply can't come close to copying that style. This is seen most predominantly in players like Julyzerg.There are a lot of players that are medium to good, that get a lot more attention then their gameplay warrants (not to say they arn't good though). This is due to their personality, and how they act. Big examples of this are FBH, Idra, and Destiny. Each are good players in their own right, but a lot of the attention they receive is not because of that skill, but because of their attitude. Watching destiny or idra's streams is a lot like watching nascar, while a few are watching for the race, the majority are there for the crashes (the spectacle)As a result though, a lot more people will watch games by players like these.Straight up and obvious, people who win more gain more fans no matter how those games go, no need for more explanation here.As we want SC2 to become an even bigger eSport, I think increasing the hype is a large factor of that. The player portion of this is being ramped up rather quickly, as the NASL is doing player app videos, as well as a number of other steps to increase the exposure of the players to their fans. The other side of things though is that the game needs to become more interesting. As we can see, deathballs and low defensive advantage both don't play towards any of the aspects shown to increase the hype of a game, in fact going contrary to them. This is why i believe we need a change; unfortunately, the change is unlikely to come from player adaption, as players will always do the best they can to win, not the best they can to create interesting games. This means that if the players cannot find a way to break free of these styles of play, I think Blizzard will need to address these concerns either in a patch, or in the next expansion.