eSports?

You just suggested to change the game because of a percieved problem with getting into it because of too good players.

I'm still baffled by how one is supposed to 'cater to the competitive scene'. I guess banning all non-top tier players from ever going online would be a way, yet I somehow doubt anyone wants that.

just because something good happens without help doesnt mean that it cant use help to get even better

Starcraft 2 manages to do it.

True, but not to the point of designing the game over it is all.

I don't understand your problem here.
As long the game has good matchmaking is good the game will be enjoyable for everyone.
I personally love the idea of PA becoming an e-sport. It draws more people into the game for years to come. You'll always be able to find opponents to play. Even years after the game was released. More players also means that it's easier for the mm system to find you a suitable opponent.
It's a win-win situation.

You do realize Blizzard practically caters the SCII for ESports right?

Mike

Well they do make money from it, But I guess that is a pretty extreme example.

That's nothing more than a side effect, Blizzard PLANNED for the game to be an Esport, and because of that it's fun for everyone regardless of skill level.

Mike

So I still don't understand what's wrong with aiming for PA to be eSports material?


From what I understand, any game without wonky, massively randomized balance changers can be an eSport. Any game that is properly balanced has the capability to be develop a competitive player-base.


I think the difference lies in what tools are provided to enable and drive that ideology.

These aren't necessary, but I would see these as massive eSports enablers.
- Ranked Ladder
- Replays (Saving, hosting and a full featured viewer, fast forwards, jumping, punching timing, shows cursors and multiple views).
- Low Latency
- LAN Play
- Real Time (You're not going to see many people playing Civ 5 competitively)
- Spectator View (that won't negatively affect game performance)

And of course, massive prize pool sponsorships.

For those who think that PA would be too slow or too boring to be a viable eSport, let me remind people that Test Cricket is still played internationally.

In order to have "E-sport potential", the game needs to be both:

1.Fun to play
2.Interesting to watch

for a wide audience. Random elements are discouraged, but there's still room for some (depending on the genre/how game changing they are). Replays, Ranked modes, and Spectating abilities help, but do nothing if the two rules above aren't met.

Just my opinion. Also, I find "E-Sport" to be a silly word.

PA definitely will be fun to play and fun to watch. Thats just how it NEEDs to be ^^

Well, if it meets those two for a wide enough audience, then it'll have a good chance imo

In my OPINION, and I've been an avid Total Annihilation and Starcraft 1/2 player since 99/00, SupCom (1 & 2) was a terrible spectator e-sport. So many of its critics said it was just "a game of dots" – and when I played it with friends or showed them a video online, even though they were RTS fans – they were put off. I liked the game (didn't love it) to play, but it did become a game of "managing dots" at times. That cannot work as an e-sport. StarCraft 2 is incredibly fun to watch for both newbies and high-level players alike. It's very cleverly designed.

A zoomed out view with dots is just much more informative for a large scale RTS, restrict it would make the game even harder to follow for the spectators, and the e-sport spectators of a game are usually the fans of that game, I don't think there is any FA fan who thinks the dot wars are unwatchable.

I find dot wars fun to watch when done correctly......with the end result of M.A.D repeating artillery.

I thought this reddit thread had a lot of interesting commentary on how Blizzard is taking a beating on player numbers vs games like League of Legends, and the general sense I got out of the thread is that in order to have a strong e-sports, you need a large casual base. Starcraft 2 focused primarly on the eSports side of things, and much less on the casual, and therefore is bleeding players to other games.

This is one of the reasons I would just like Uber to spend half their time developing Galactic Wars for the casual experience, and half for the eSports experience. You need both, but 90/10 is a bad ratio.


Also, secondary thought - Do NOT change the game to make it 'easier' for noobs. IT WILL NEVER WORK. It's not the game being difficult or complex that is an issue, it's just that the noob gets matched up against a pro and gets stomped.
Even simple stuff like "Before you go 1v1, you can pre-rank by beating this AI" is a good idea that I haven't seen used anywhere.

As long as PA doesn't turn into the equivalent of a persons first go at dwarf fortress, then it should turn out fine.

Easy to get army's, powerful energy draining defenses and more nukes then the US of A.

Ah TA how I have missed you.

That thread does mention one important thing, and that is laddering anxiety. If losing a game results in a form of punishment (going down in ranking/being demoted), then it suddenly becomes a bit less enjoyable for players to jump in for a fun game.

In my eyes, the concept of a skill ladder should really be there in order to keep people of similar skill levels playing with eachother, so that games they play are more likely to be fun rather than one-sided steamrolls. Making the ladder a lot less conspicuous, such as sticking to ELO rankings, makes a loss a much less drastic event.

Of course, for those players that WANT to experience that competitive aspect, there should be some way to give them that aspect. I'm just not sure how I'd implement it in a way that would remain friendly for the less competitive players.

Speaking of the ladder, any thoughts on the system to determine ranking? I wasn't a big fan of ELO used in gpgnet, and much prefer the trueskill system in FAF.