5 ms·

> I don't think Blizzard has ever been a part of that scene I'd argue that Blizzard was largely responsible for defining modern eSports. Blizzard games helped

by mbell 10y ago

> I don't think Blizzard has ever been a part of that scene I'd argue that Blizzard was largely responsible for defining modern eSports. Blizzard games helped drive the creation of many of the gaming leagues, ESL/IEM started with Warcraft III and the original Counter-Strike. Starcraft and Starcraft 2 had huge competitive communities in their prime and really drove the growth of eSports. Starcraft 2 is tapering off today but Hearthstone is huge and Heroes of the Storm, while not nearly as popular as LoL/Dota2 is still built as a competitive game.

errantspark 10y ago
I'm curious how you're evaluating a game being competitive vs. not. Maybe my bar is just set a lot higher but I don't really see HotS as being a game that's really intended as a competitive game. I'd say Starcraft, SSBM, DotA, Q3 CPMA/Reflex are games that are geared toward competitive play. Whereas HotS, LoL and Overwatch seem much more aimed at being fun and satisfying to play for the average person who isn't interested in sinking 40 hours into a game just to learn basic skills like how to strafe jump or tech/wave dash. I'm not really trying to push a particular viewpoint though, just curious if you'd expand on what YOU think makes a game competitive?
- mbell 10y ago
  As a baseline I'd say that any game where the 'prime content' is ranked PvP it is a competitive game. Sure HotS and LoL have non-ranked play but they aren't the focus of the game. Another simple metric is to look at eSport tournaments by prize pool. If people are playing the game in an attempt to win hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, it's a competitive game. I get the impression that you are conflating 'competitive' with 'difficult'.
  - jzelinskie 10y ago
    Ranked play is nothing other than a mechanic to match you with players of equal skill at a game. I posit that maybe every multiplayer game should have it, even cooperative games, since it removes the terrible experience that is having experienced players play with brand new ones. I understand your point about conflating "competitive" and "difficult", but there is a reason why people couple the concepts together: there's no point in competitively playing a game with a low skill ceiling. An extremely contrived example of this: Rock-Paper-Scissors is a competitive, PvP game and yet no one would ever host tournaments for it because of the ridiculously low skill ceiling; there's not enough to differentiate an experienced player from a brand new one.
    - mbell 10y ago
      > Ranked play is nothing other than a mechanic to match you with players of equal skill at a game. Almost all such games maintain some sort of per player rating (ELOish usually) which is separate from ranked play and often hidden. You certainly don't need to play ranked modes just to be paired with similar skill level players. > there's no point in competitively playing a game with a low skill ceiling. Sure, but in combination with previous comment your inference appears to be that HotS, LoL and Overwatch are low skill cap games. I'm curious what your argument for that is. Using LoL as an example the overall ELO distribution is extremely bottom heavy with a smooth taper to the top; vastly more players in lower ranks than higher despite having consistent promotion rules. A ranking for a low skill cap game would be expected to have a bunching at the top as the skill cap is quickly reached and the outcome becomes more random. One thing these 3 games do have in common is a low barrier to entry, but I see no correlation between that and skill cap in video games or traditional sports. e.g. a very young child can start to play soccer, but that doesn't mean soccer has a low skill cap.
PeCaN 10y ago
Starcraft was in its prime when KeSPA was managing everything. Blizzard effective ran SC2 into the ground rather quickly in comparison (SC:BW had a strong competitive scene for 10+ years, SC2 lasted maybe 4 and started to taper off very quicky).

by mbell 10y ago

errantspark 10y ago

I'm curious how you're evaluating a game being competitive vs. not. Maybe my bar is just set a lot higher but I don't really see HotS as being a game that's really intended as a competitive game. I'd say Starcraft, SSBM, DotA, Q3 CPMA/Reflex are games that are geared toward competitive play. Whereas HotS, LoL and Overwatch seem much more aimed at being fun and satisfying to play for the average person who isn't interested in sinking 40 hours into a game just to learn basic skills like how to strafe jump or tech/wave dash. I'm not really trying to push a particular viewpoint though, just curious if you'd expand on what YOU think makes a game competitive?

mbell 10y ago
As a baseline I'd say that any game where the 'prime content' is ranked PvP it is a competitive game. Sure HotS and LoL have non-ranked play but they aren't the focus of the game. Another simple metric is to look at eSport tournaments by prize pool. If people are playing the game in an attempt to win hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, it's a competitive game. I get the impression that you are conflating 'competitive' with 'difficult'.
- jzelinskie 10y ago
  Ranked play is nothing other than a mechanic to match you with players of equal skill at a game. I posit that maybe every multiplayer game should have it, even cooperative games, since it removes the terrible experience that is having experienced players play with brand new ones. I understand your point about conflating "competitive" and "difficult", but there is a reason why people couple the concepts together: there's no point in competitively playing a game with a low skill ceiling. An extremely contrived example of this: Rock-Paper-Scissors is a competitive, PvP game and yet no one would ever host tournaments for it because of the ridiculously low skill ceiling; there's not enough to differentiate an experienced player from a brand new one.
  - mbell 10y ago
    > Ranked play is nothing other than a mechanic to match you with players of equal skill at a game. Almost all such games maintain some sort of per player rating (ELOish usually) which is separate from ranked play and often hidden. You certainly don't need to play ranked modes just to be paired with similar skill level players. > there's no point in competitively playing a game with a low skill ceiling. Sure, but in combination with previous comment your inference appears to be that HotS, LoL and Overwatch are low skill cap games. I'm curious what your argument for that is. Using LoL as an example the overall ELO distribution is extremely bottom heavy with a smooth taper to the top; vastly more players in lower ranks than higher despite having consistent promotion rules. A ranking for a low skill cap game would be expected to have a bunching at the top as the skill cap is quickly reached and the outcome becomes more random. One thing these 3 games do have in common is a low barrier to entry, but I see no correlation between that and skill cap in video games or traditional sports. e.g. a very young child can start to play soccer, but that doesn't mean soccer has a low skill cap.

PeCaN 10y ago

Starcraft was in its prime when KeSPA was managing everything. Blizzard effective ran SC2 into the ground rather quickly in comparison (SC:BW had a strong competitive scene for 10+ years, SC2 lasted maybe 4 and started to taper off very quicky).