Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Why Shogun 2 fail as e-sports?

2

Comments

  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    GrudgeNL wrote: »
    Come on guys. TW was never meant for e-sports. CA always focussed on Singleplayer. It wasn't until Napoleon and Shogun 2, they started to add better Multiplayer components. Give it time. Shogun 2's multiplayer is brand new in the whole TW saga and is the closest thing you can get for ranked competitive Multiplayer in any TW game.

    The avatar conquest map is a step closer to a more solid experience. Don't blame Game Designers for Multiplayer mistakes, when they only released proper multiplayer for one single title. I'd say, have patience on this one. CA is learning more and more about Multiplayer. Maybe in the next Grand TW title, we'll see a Multiplayer partially dedicated for e-sports.

    actually I totally disagree with you, the retainer system, veteran system, conquest map and avatar system are all geared towards giving bonuses to players with more experience and games, therefore they punish newer players, who are less likely to be TW fans or stick around for longer, this limits the pool of people playing. the system also has more exploits, imbalances and glitches than in the 'classic' version such as replays being bugged, which prevents casters being able really show the games good side. The combination of these factors means Shogun is further away from being a mainstream Esport than any other TW.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    6) Total War games are in comparison more sophisticated and complicated than Blizzard's RTS games from a technical perspective.
    not really and that isnt a limiting factor anyway.
  • BillyRuffianBillyRuffian Moderator UKRegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 38,018
    edited February 2012
    Interesting, and it would be great news if it is confirmed!

    It was in the FOTS annoncement thread http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/28373-Official-Announcement-Total-War-Shogun-2-Fall-of-the-Samurai?p=270771&viewfull=1#post270771

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
  • spicykoreanspicykorean Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,632
    edited February 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    6) Total War games are in comparison more sophisticated and complicated than Blizzard's RTS games from a technical perspective.

    LOL. Wrong.
  • SecuterSecuter Senior Member Denmark, Aarhus.Registered Users Posts: 2,333
    edited February 2012
    All the TW games have been for the single player. It's first now they even touch another kind of multplayer with a good system, customizable units and such.

    The other games that have been mentioned also got some huge fan bases. But to say that they are all good is wrong. Their player base are much more rough. Not really nice.

    But well next time they'll put some more effort into mp. But still the SP is the main thing in TW games - and I'd like to keep it that way ;)
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    Secuter wrote: »
    All the TW games have been for the single player. It's first now they even touch another kind of multplayer with a good system, customizable units and such.

    The other games that have been mentioned also got some huge fan bases. But to say that they are all good is wrong. Their player base are much more rough. Not really nice.

    But well next time they'll put some more effort into mp. But still the SP is the main thing in TW games - and I'd like to keep it that way ;)
    by putting more planning into Mp we went from RTW and empire to napoleon and shogun.
  • GzealGzeal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 178
    edited February 2012
    daniu wrote: »
    It's very simple why S2 fails as an esport: because it's really boring to watch.
    I can spend hours watching sc2 casts although I don't even play the game (well finished sp campaign but that's it).
    ETW and NTW were a little better, but Shogun 2 battle casts just suck. Not neccessarily because of the casters, there are a few good ones out there, but because of the game. Balance doesn't even go into it.

    With the two fixed armies up against each other, there is no strategic dynamics whatsoever; all there is on the strategic level is choice of units and that can't be changed anymore once in battle. All reactions to the opponent's actions are tactical. In sc2, people will switch their build depending on the situation, making the whole game much more multidimensional.

    mind telling me where I can find those good casters? For recent ones.
  • YoritomoYoritomo Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 701
    edited February 2012
    Gzeal wrote: »
    mind telling me where I can find those good casters? For recent ones.

    What u want to cast? There are dozends of casts on youtube already but show the clicks... 50 to 300. Just Heir and VieleFeindeVielEhre have pretty good clicks. Unfortunately they dont cast it for e-sport. They cast it for general purposes.
    Without replays show what exactly happend on battlefield good casts are impossible. Replays are broken since autumn patch, still no fix.

    Casters as spectators cause lag.
    You want successfully arty camp in deploy zone? Go ahead and get your win.
  • AMPAMP Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,225
    edited February 2012
    Just look at the Aggony Tournament you had up to 150 people watching the finals livestream, so the interest is there and could grow, but the game would have to undergo some changes for that to happen first and that won't happen with CA.

    It's cheaper and much less of a hassle to make SP campaigns with throw on MP and just release DLCs from time to time and do little patching as possible.

    If you had good balance and a means to ends battles like command points and or reinforcements and big money prizes I'm sure it would pick up and grow. It might not reach the scale of Starcraft, but atleast it gives something else for those with different tastes from the standard RTS games.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    Just wondering that since everyone took the time to come and say why Shogun isn't an Esport, the general consensus seems to be its CA's fault (big surprise) but that it does have time to grow. So how many people will be watching or trying to compete in Fishsandwich Patrols tournament?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWx3dxySnDg&feature=g-u-u&context=G2f1af5aFUAAAAAAAAAA
    I think if we want Shogun to be an Esport we do need to raise interest in these tournaments.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,510
    edited February 2012
    If you disagree with my statement, feel free to explain. My argument is that the more complicated something like a program (re video game) is, the more you have to keep working well together.

    Of course Blizzard had the benefit of how many years to develop a game where you just train a handful of dudes, and not need to worry about things like direction and flanking. Not to mention their units are one thing, while a TW unit can be as high as 150 men acting autonomously yet with cohesion. More stuff means more work needed to make sure they actually flow together. Work means time, something I don't think CA possessed the luxury of having.

    In other words the technical advances for TW and gaming industry in general has outpaced CA's ability to create games with any suitable capability of refining them. A quantity over quality issue, really. Or in the academic world, publish or perish.

    TW games are like engines- so long as you maintain it very frequently (and very well!) it will perform accordingly. Right now it's like a very good engine that's been given inadequate maintenance (bugs), and thus therefore won't perform very well (resulting issues with bugs). Or if you're into guns, you'd relate when I say that an M16 only performs well in Vietnam if you clean it properly.

    As for e-sport material, I prefer if they don't take that route. Because it would give refinement and patching an even lower priority than it is now. The reason I dislike going the eSport route is merely the same reason why I think they should focus on their existing products than churning out new ones.

    I can't help but use the an.alogy of an essay paper. You won't ever get an A grade if it's poorly written, proofread, with incorrect grammar, and missing pages. You need to go back and make corrections. Until then, your paper is either a Redo, and I for incomplete, or a big red zero around a big fat F. Whether or not the topic of the paper is great, or the style written was compelling are ultimately irrelevant- it failed to meet quality standard. Can you imagine a student giving his teacher a plethora of Ifs, Ands or Butts on the basis that the idea itself was great and therefore the grade should be higher?

    Because end of the day, the game has to perform well with minimal issues once players play it as an eSport. Games like Starcraft2 have that advantage, because they are greatly written essays, or well-maintained engines. If CA lack the ability or will to perform to that standard, they will fail no matter how great the idea is. Perfection via execution counts. Something I honestly think CA still has a lot to learn.

    As-is, taking a TW game like Shogun2 into eSport territory is like taking an uncleaned, poorly maintained M16 rifle to battle. Yeah, you're not going to last long.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    If you disagree with my statement, feel free to explain. My argument is that the more complicated something like a program (re video game) is, the more you have to keep working well together.

    Of course Blizzard had the benefit of how many years to develop a game where you just train a handful of dudes, and not need to worry about things like direction and flanking. Not to mention their units are one thing, while a TW unit can be as high as 150 men acting autonomously yet with cohesion. More stuff means more work needed to make sure they actually flow together. Work means time, something I don't think CA possessed the luxury of having.

    In other words the technical advances for TW and gaming industry in general has outpaced CA's ability to create games with any suitable capability of refining them. A quantity over quality issue, really.

    As for e-sport material, I prefer if they don't take that route. Because it would give refinement and patching an even lower priority than it is now.

    TW games are like a very good engine- so long as you maintain it very frequently (and very well!) it will perform accordingly. Right now it's like a very good engine that's been given inadequate maintenance (bugs), and thus therefore won't perform very well (resulting issues with bugs).
    I think we disagree because Starcraft and Warcraft are just as sophisticated at higher level play, for example while there may not be a direct advantage for flanking however it blocks retreat paths allows for counter attacks and creates a larger concave. I disagree that if Ca tried to make TW games into Esports there would be less patching, patching occurs regularly and on most e sports to try and achieve a perfect balance instead of like in shogun where we have too face one gamebreaking spam after another until there is an overreaction that kills the unit entirely. I don't know enougth about programming to argue with you about the rest of your points.
  • RumpullpusRumpullpus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,216
    edited February 2012
    IMHO total war games are really more singleplayer games then multiplayer. i like to think most people are like me and touched the multiplayer once or twice but almost always plays singleplayer
  • Sima Zhong DaSima Zhong Da Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 532
    edited February 2012
    「Actually, the patching thing was a minor point. What daelin4 was trying to get at (I think) was that the Shogun 2 engine is too complicated, it kinda sucks in comparison to the traditional RTS style (single unit) which has been refined over the years by millions of game companies using that format to make their RTS games. The Total War engine itself restricts the e-sports option.」
    Modern war is conducted against an out-group by powerful people who have an exaggerated opinion of themselves and their degree of morality, are overconfident, often have an illusion of control, enjoy taking risks and are almost always male. - Robert Trivers, Deceit and Self-deception
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,510
    edited February 2012
    Im more about the technical standpoint, not gameplay, although gameplay has a tendency to go hand in hand with technicality. Patching occurs regularly: I think it's because these games are simpler to make and maintain. Games like Starcraft I would say are like rowboats compared to TW being a steam-paddler- their very advantage is their relative simplicity. Would you not agree that a lot of games we enjoy are actually quite simple ones? Because you're not constantly burdened with technical issues, and thus your experience will largely be more positive...or you were bored.

    But you do have a point- on one hand going into eSports has the potential of giving more incentive to start patching. But precisely because of the issues I made- writing an essay for fun's sake and the writer won't have as much incentive to make corrections, unless s/he's a perfectionist. Writing an essay knowing you need to do well to pass (and not get booted out) and you'll have incentive to do it right. Unfortunately I think we can all agree that CA isn't exactly par excellence in regards to making patches, however well-intentioned they may be. Industry standards are after all about making a product that fulfills certain standards, which we may not agree to be the best for consumers.

    Sima Zhong Da is correct: My argument is that Total War games have and always are more complicated than most other types. You have campaign map where you get money, spent on training units, put into armies, and sent forth to fight another army which was created as a result of doing the same. Then to fight them you go into battle mode which uses completely different features.

    IMO Total War games are a matter of fusing two different game styles together that one affects the other; if you don't train good units in campaign mode, then in battle mode you can only use the units you got. And chances are the AI will have done differently and pumped out higher quality units that WILL kick your butt. Which means your army is destroyed, your last settlement is taken and you therefore lose the campaign. What you do in campaign mode affects how well you'll do in battle mode. And what happens in battle mode will apply to campaign mode. There is not other game I know that does this style. It basically requires two very different game mechanics to work well together. THAT requires considerable expertise to put together, make reality, and work well enough each time to be deemed relatively bug-free. And that's just watering down everything about TW to its bare bones.

    And yes, traditional styles like RTS and FPS games have the additional advantage of being tried-and true genres for eSports. That's not even talking about complexities of game engines, that's genre in general. The biggest initial challenge to get TW on board with eSports is to get people familiarized with the game style. The fact that the bigger share of talk about TW games is their bugginess doesn't help achieve this. Au contrare the most we hear about games like Starcraft2 is their being dumbed down, not about the sheer technical complexity that random crashes, long loading times, desyncs are rarely heard of.

    I won't say TW restricts the eSport option though: the simple fact is that the general TW multiplayer population has a lot to say and experience with regards to bugs, glitches, exploits, and such. All of these, "coincidentally", are technical issues. And by technical I'm leaving out things like unit balance. Because the cause of balance issues can be caused by technical issues; if a retainer for some reason does not become active, or are overpowered due to glitches, then inevitably balance issues will result.

    The core of the problem, then, is the technical complexity of Total War games. Like I said, a well-oiled machine will perform great. But only if well-oiled.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    Im more about the technical standpoint, not gameplay

    The core of the problem, then, is the technical complexity of Total War games. Like I said, a well-oiled machine will perform great. But only if well-oiled.

    Apologies I misunderstood, in that case what would be your suggestion for FOTS or Rome 2 in order to make it more accessible to new players?
  • naishonaisho Senior Member USARegistered Users Posts: 3,425
    edited February 2012
    @dark as silver

    I am sorry to tell you but in terms of mechanics games like SC are as simple as they come.

    For simplicity sake lets split mechanics into 3 categories. Surface mechanics, game behavior, and human mechanics.

    Surface mechanics: this is the visual representation of game behavior, do not confuse this mechanic with strategy. Strategy is not inherent to gameplay unless specifically designed that way. (aka pokemon w/ elemental strengths and weaknesses) There is nothing inherently strategic about a battlefield unless game behavior is dictating something underneath that battlefield.

    Game Behavior: In a nut shell this is the determinate of how the game world works. For example if we look at Portal and we strip out the narrative (anything that informs the player of the world) we are left with 3 basic mechanics. 1 direction movement (including jumping) 2 portal movements 3 death by external devices. Of course you can expand that but functionally that is the base of the game. This doesn't mean that the game is without entertainment value, but rather the fictional world it exists in cannot exceed its base limitations such as flying.

    Human Mechanics: This is the human element that is added to gameplay. Humans arrived with a myriad of experiences which create variance in behaviors. Due to these external modifiers a battlefield which had no inherent strategic element, as described in surface mechanics, becomes valuable in the eyes of the player. For example, that narrow passage which had no gameplay value before becomes a chokepoint. Strategy stems from humans rather than gameplay, unless otherwise as mentioned in game behavior.

    So lets get into the nitty gritty of my original statement at the top.

    We have to separate out the mechanics to determine the source.

    When you start doing that most of the higher level gameplay of SC is actually human driven rather than game driven. That is what makes a game into a good E-Sport.

    In TW everything from height to walls, soldiers types, morale, troop numbers, forests, hills, arrows/bullets, flight paths, and even rivers have a predetermined effect on the battlefield. Strategy is almost handed to the player before they even enter the game. Due to all these complicated mechanics it is near impossible to actually create a E-Sport. the only physical way to do so would be to make all maps procedurally or randomly generated so as to create an air of uncertainty which is otherwise impossible in this heavily predetermined game. It is that uncertainty which makes a E-Sport. I can't tell you how many games I have seen won in the first minute and the losing player didn't know until after 5 more minutes of gameplay.
    1---/\__/\
    1=(O-"-O)=/\
    1--- / | | \--/ -|
    1---| \-/ \-_ /
    1--( Neko )

    Naisho the Neko

    "You have raised assorted issues under what might be termed a “I-don’t-like-it because-I-say-it’s-not-historical” banner. This isn't quite the same as "justified", I'm sorry to say." -MikeB
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    naisho wrote: »
    @dark as silver

    I am sorry to tell you but in terms of mechanics games like SC are as simple as they come.

    the concepts are simple but strategy has the same sophistication whatever game its in.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,510
    edited February 2012
    Apologies I misunderstood, in that case what would be your suggestion for FOTS or Rome 2 in order to make it more accessible to new players?
    Quite simple, really. Either CA devote more resources towards making their complex games manageable (judging by technical issues they have had and still have with previous and current titles, I would suggest that this is the case), or start scaling their games down to a simpler level that maintenance and dealing with issues like bugs are easier to handle.

    In the end I'm not saying TW games don't suit eSports in principle or anything to that sort. I'm just saying that whatever is put to the test, it needs to work well, at least enough that the experience of TW games becomes more of what happens as expected, rather than bugs and issues and exploits that seems to be so prevalent when visiting the MP section. Outside normal channels like this forum and TWC, the most common thing I hear about Total War games involves the word "buggy".

    Think of it this way: supply and demand. And demand has gone up. To keep up with demand you naturally increase your supply. In this case, supply meaning CA's manpower and technical expertise to meet demand, which is to develop a game that is relatively bug free. It is my personal opinion that, due to a considerable amount of attention towards TW games' technical issues, that CA has not kept pace with supply to meet the demand. Desync comes to mind; it has been around since release, and still have no official, true fix. From what I know and understand this is a complex issue.

    As for becoming more accessible to new players, I don;t know, that's not what I was talking about. I like TW precisely for its complexity. It is the biggest reason why I play Shogun2 rather than Starcraft2. Any bloke can log into Battlenet or Counterstrike of BF3 and start clowning around (I do that often), but when it comes to serious, roll-over-AI with no mercy and become the epic master of a realm via hard planning and careful strategy, I play TW games. I like it because it's NOT simple.

    But the natural consequence for something being not simple is that it is complex. It has far more cogs to the machine than simpler games. More parts mean more potential problems, thus more maintenance needed. In other words, TW games are starting to lack what I believe are the appropriate amount of technical refinement.

    And like what Naisho said, most "simple" games you'd find on eSport don't have things like morale and campaign map bonuses that can translate to battlefield success. In Shogun2 a general with bonuses to upkeep don't mean much in a fight, but that means more money that can be used to build better buildings, build more ships, and more men. That doesn't happen in games like Starcraft.
    the concepts are simple but strategy has the same sophistication whatever game its in.
    Can you please translate or elaborate on this? If by that statement you mean all games have the same level and depth of strategy, from solitaire to Starcraft to Total War, then I beg to differ.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,510
    edited February 2012
    daelin4 wrote: »
    Can you please translate or elaborate on this? If by that statement you mean all games have the same level and depth of strategy, from solitaire to Starcraft to Total War, then I beg to differ.
    What I meant was that even while games such as star craft don't have the same mechanics like morale, they still have a similar depth of strategy that comes with scouting to adapt unit compositions and other things, mind games can work quite often at high level play where you build a building let it be scouted then cancel it and go down a different tech path. One great example is Ruse which has many of the same features of Shogun and traditional RTSs, also look at chess that has very few features and how many people would argue that that's not a great strategy game.
    Although I'll admit solitaire is maybe lacking in depth.
  • naishonaisho Senior Member USARegistered Users Posts: 3,425
    edited February 2012
    My original point was only with mechanics that Strategy is not mechanics unless designed so. With TW the strategy is designed into the mechanics, for SC that is not the case.

    (I know you are asking, but what does it mean?)

    SC = Simple mechanics and great variety of choices thus good e-sport.

    TW = Complex mechanics and low variety of choices thus bad e-sport.

    We as humans enjoy the uncertainty in a sport. TW you generally know who has won within a minute or two of the battle at first contact. There is very little uncertainty thus no tension.

    A great example, is that in the middle of a SC battle a player can change his entire strategy to fit the new situation but in TW that takes time and the movement of troops to reorganize means the other player has won. I have seen very rarely a few upsets but aside from that a battle goes exactly as you expect.
    1---/\__/\
    1=(O-"-O)=/\
    1--- / | | \--/ -|
    1---| \-/ \-_ /
    1--( Neko )

    Naisho the Neko

    "You have raised assorted issues under what might be termed a “I-don’t-like-it because-I-say-it’s-not-historical” banner. This isn't quite the same as "justified", I'm sorry to say." -MikeB
  • spicykoreanspicykorean Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,632
    edited February 2012
    You pretty much nailed it on the head, Naisho.
    However, the difference that you defined is probably too subtle for most of us to understand.
  • GrudgeNLGrudgeNL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,179
    edited February 2012
    「Problem is, CA is releasing FoTS in March, I don't think multiplayer will be substantially improved by then if the game it is based on is already bugged to hell and back.」

    FotS is a expansion. Not a full blown epic new title in the TW saga.
    Grudge's Mods
    Total War: Karling - Coming soon...-ish
    Grudge's Total War: Attila - Sassanid UI skin here on the Steam Workshop
  • zaptirizaptiri Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 11
    edited February 2012
    naisho wrote: »
    My original point was only with mechanics that Strategy is not mechanics unless designed so. With TW the strategy is designed into the mechanics, for SC that is not the case.

    (I know you are asking, but what does it mean?)

    SC = Simple mechanics and great variety of choices thus good e-sport.

    TW = Complex mechanics and low variety of choices thus bad e-sport.

    We as humans enjoy the uncertainty in a sport. TW you generally know who has won within a minute or two of the battle at first contact. There is very little uncertainty thus no tension.

    A great example, is that in the middle of a SC battle a player can change his entire strategy to fit the new situation but in TW that takes time and the movement of troops to reorganize means the other player has won. I have seen very rarely a few upsets but aside from that a battle goes exactly as you expect.

    I'm sorry but I disagree with you and the moderator as well.

    SC2 may seem simple, but if you are a regular e-sports watcher, you will realize that it's small bits and pieces that makes difference.

    Shogun 2 multiplayer today consists of katana spam and leadership tree, maybe 2-3 unit differs each player, but spam is the same spam. They call it Katana Core, to say it in a nicer way, but if 70% of your units are same unit in the game, it is a spam. This is because of balance issues, again not players' fault.

    I'm 10 ranked silver general, and honestly I find Shogun 2 multiplayer relatively easy today, not complex at all. Yes, some maps favor some builds, and some maps are imbalanced that one side already won the battle when they spawn on a specific side. These are again balance issues. If these balance issues are solved (which are not many) the game is pretty good to go for E-sports. We are not talking about a multiplayer dedicated game, just more balance patches, in shorter terms, more testing before patch applied and few organized events to attract sponsors.

    Remember, e-sports is a different culture, triggers fire of passion and ultimate intelligence within players. When there is money and fame on the line, players will play a different style, they will do their best, every little trick they can and believe me you will not be able to say which side wins from the beginning of the game. This fire of passion brings quality games, where small details, smart tactics and micromanagement brings victory, and good games to watch.

    Of course, you would not watch a katana spam vs katana spam. But it's not game's fault, it's the designer's choice to make a too good, too solid unit. Of course everyone will use it. A bit of nerf like -1 armor, -1 melee to katana would change a lot of things. Again it's designer's choice not to nerf leadership or reduce the bonuses special buildings give on the map.

    It's because of designer's choices that Shogun 2 is not in e-sports today, because no game is even watchable at the moment. The game does not need more graphics, more units or more DLC's, just a good dedicated team to multiplayer side.
  • TheDukeTheDuke Banned Banned Users Posts: 365
    edited February 2012
    hmm you do know that having alot of the same unit doesnt benefit the player, after having a certain amount of kat sam in your army, it starts to become useless.
  • YoritomoYoritomo Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 701
    edited February 2012
    naisho wrote: »
    @dark as silver

    I am sorry to tell you but in terms of mechanics games like SC are as simple as they come.

    For simplicity sake lets split mechanics into 3 categories. Surface mechanics, game behavior, and human mechanics.

    Surface mechanics:

    Game Behavior:

    Human Mechanics:


    When you start doing that most of the higher level gameplay of SC is actually human driven rather than game driven. That is what makes a game into a good E-Sport.

    In this heavily predetermined game. It is that uncertainty which makes a E-Sport. I can't tell you how many games I have seen won in the first minute and the losing player didn't know until after 5 more minutes of gameplay.

    Interesting point of view. I wont disagree in general but e-sport is all bout to be competitive. Your right, this game favours predetermination far more than any other Title. But this effect you call predetermined belongs to Human Mechanics. The decision bout Army build composition, the style how vets are upgraded, which retainers are available, belongs to pre-action.

    If balance of scissor-paper-rock would work and no successful spam possible. If all Retainers would be available to all, not by random or spended money this game would give a even chance for both players to win if both Avatars are 10 Star. Of Course Maps for multiplayer matchmade must be redesigned. CA did some advances.
    Stil pretty much ifs.
    You dont need a arcade game for e-sport.
    Sure the simple games are designated e-sport titles, perhaps cause simple minded people prefer e-sport?

    Is chess e-sport? Run around with a virtual gun is e-sport. Competition means not to be simple and dumb tbh.
    You want successfully arty camp in deploy zone? Go ahead and get your win.
  • YoritomoYoritomo Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 701
    edited February 2012
    zaptiri wrote: »

    It's because of designer's choices that Shogun 2 is not in e-sports today, because no game is even watchable at the moment. The game does not need more graphics, more units or more DLC's, just a good dedicated team to multiplayer side.

    The facsication to watch comes from who will win. That is what Naisho wants to tell i guess. In first 3 Seconds of the game most decisions are made and you can forecast who win.

    But seen also Battles between balanced armys that have some unexpected changes.

    For example a tourney match on Waterfalls.

    It starts with... Ah the green player will win... oh... **** that was a good flanking move from the white player. Greens Units start to waver.
    Warrior monks from white outflanked the slow moving HF Ahsi spearwalls and matchlocks and bows are not aiming them. Hold firm is called by greens ashis.
    Oh hidden cav from green hammer and anavil white and stabilizes the green line again. The general of white is in mortal danger.
    White starts warcry. But green got the Armoury camptured and move Nag attendants to bow building. And the battle is on Sword. Now white calls the cav from far behind to save the general.
    Whites matchlocks concentrate fire on green Cav. General still alive. Greens right flank is breaking now caus hold firm ends or too much Flanking damage done by white in combination with warcry.
    White Center is done meanwhile and green Center units go to finish the Flanks. White Cav saved the general and Green have no Cav. Matchlocks of white support the monks on the flanks and the damaged white Cav breaks through a hole in the Center charging the green bows who are biggest thread now for Nagi Cav and white matchlocks. Done them but to late for the monks. So white remains with 2 matchlocks and 2 hurt cav one Katana one Nagkav. Green General mounted meanwhile from stand and fight to save him, got long yari ashis, nag attendants and two katanasams left.

    So what should the green player do now and what the white player? Now there was a true rethinking instead of only act/react.
    You want successfully arty camp in deploy zone? Go ahead and get your win.
  • spicykoreanspicykorean Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,632
    edited February 2012
    44.33% of statistics are made up completely. :)
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,510
    edited February 2012
    What I meant was that even while games such as star craft don't have the same mechanics like morale, they still have a similar depth of strategy that comes with scouting to adapt unit compositions and other things, mind games can work quite often at high level play where you build a building let it be scouted then cancel it and go down a different tech path. One great example is Ruse which has many of the same features of Shogun and traditional RTSs, also look at chess that has very few features and how many people would argue that that's not a great strategy game.
    Although I'll admit solitaire is maybe lacking in depth.

    I define depth in the way of having certain features or dimensions of said features.

    Solitaire lacks depth relative to TW games or Starcraft because you don't have things like morale and money, yet is still a strategic game in the most general sense of the word. Total War games have more depth than Solitaire and Starcraft precisely because it has for dimensions to its game strategy- morale, income, diplomacy, etc. And with that logic Starcraft is in the middle because it does have depth like unit variety, money, expansion for more money and how to defeat your opponents, but not as much depth precisely because it lacks certain features we would generally consider make for more complexity.

    Luckily for Blizzard everyone's is familiar with their RTS game style. I'm quite certain that part of Starraft2's development included the decision not to make things more complicated than they are now, for reasons of retaining fan base as well as minimizing complexity they deemed unnecessary. Would they have wanted to include all of Total War game's features like morale and formations and pitched battles?

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • spicykoreanspicykorean Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,632
    edited February 2012
    Morale does not exist in Starcraft's RTS but formations exist (e.g. unit size, land and air groupings, etc.) and pitched battles most certainly exist as terrain is an integral part of the game.

    I still feel strongly that Naisho explained it very well why this type of discussion will never get very far in our tw community because we are so entrenched in our thinking and by now have extreme tunnel-vision about what we think of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.