
Professional Starcraft Team releases documentary with pay-what-you-want model - mwilcox
http://www.teamliquidpro.com/liquidrising/
======
marcamillion
This is one of the reasons I love e-sports and the SC2 scene in general.

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS $39,972.81 ESPORTS Heroes

2\. EvilGeniuses $666.00

For those that don't know...EvilGeniuses are a "rival" Pro SC2 team. It's
awesome that they can support Liquid (and e-sports in general, I guess) like
this.

~~~
trafficlight
A rising tide lifts all boats.

I really think all of the SC2 teams take that to heart.

~~~
marcamillion
Agreed.

------
sliverstorm
Maybe this is because I'm only a casual SC2 player, but it seems like there is
a big flaw here- _what are we buying_?

Sure, it's a video. And it has something about Team Liquid.

...

???

~~~
apaitch
Team Liquid is a rather popular professional gaming team, especially in
Starcraft 2. I doubt anyone would end up on their website not knowing who they
are (why would you go to teamliquid.com just for kicks?) so it's not that bad
of a flaw.

~~~
jmduke
Because you were referred to the site by a link on HN, for one.

~~~
phaus
The name of the post that referred you pretty much gives enough information to
determine whether or not it will interest you enough to pay.

Even if it doesn't, you can bypass the login/donation and watch the
documentary before you decide how much it is worth.

------
MikeCapone
I've seen it and it's pretty good. I wish it had more of "following player X
during a tournament day", but instead it's more based on interviews of all the
members of the team. Still, worth the time and money (whatever you decide to
pay for it).

------
jiggy2011
Slight OT:

I don't understand why Starcraft has such a big "Pro" scene compared to other
RTS games, many of which are more sophisticated (e.g Total
Annihilation/Supreme Commander).

Most of my experience playing Starcraft (the original) online was that the
winner tended to be the one who could spam the most units out of the gate
rather than any particular strategical cleverness.

~~~
codehotter
I have played starcraft for ten years and reached a reasonable high level of
skill. To be a good starcraft player, you need to be skilled in three broad
areas

~~~

\- Good mechanics and multitasking

This is your ability to have your units do what you want. You want unit X to
go to place Y, you are quickly able to give that command, without taking up
much of your attention. You're also able to simultaneously build units,
advance your build at home, harass your opponent, reposition units, look at
the minimap, and micromanage where necessary. Top players can have more than 5
actions per second average.

\- Good micromanagement and tactical skill

For example, your ability to spread your units to take less damage from area
of effect spells, focus fire on the most important enemy targets to get them
down faster, your ability to position your units for flanking, to keep a
scouting unit alive while being chased, etc. Maximizing the effectiveness of
individual units.

\- Good macromanagement and strategical skill

Your ability to advance your build at home correctly (what most effectively
counters the opponent), to spend all your resources and not have it stack up
in the bank, to choose the correct timings for expanding across the map or
amassing an army, and to anticipate your army composition for what your
opponent will do.

~~~

If you expect to be playing a game of chess, you'll be far behind even in the
first few minutes. Your opponent's scouting unit micromanages and interrupts
your build without your being able to kill even the scouting unit, and while
your concentration is on the harassing unit, your opponent, who can multitask,
executes his build perfectly.

Without a base level of competence mechanically (which in starcraft is about 2
effective actions per second) you cannot even compete strategically.

All three of these areas impress viewers which makes for a very 'spectatable'
game.

Good mechanics and multitasking are evident when, after you've watched a
battle, you can see how many more units the top player has been able to
produce - while he was simultaneously micromanaging his units in battle.

Micromanagement, at least in starcraft, is very fun to watch. You can see the
small army outmanoeuvre the larger enemy by individual control of units - it's
hard to explain why it is impressive in just words, but the joy of watching
good micromanagement is a core feature of spectating starcraft games. Watch
for example here, how the player's marines dodges the spines while he keeps
shooting.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQtPMLOctBg>

Starcraft has a lot of 'soft counters' - units that counter other units but
not completely. The focus on soft counters rather than hard counters gives
players a lot of strategic freedom. Even if one player's units are countered,
he can micromanage them and come out ahead. Or, for example, a player can take
a risky early expansion to extra resources and rely on micromanagement of his
few units to stay alive.

Finally, since the maps that people play on do change, it takes a while to
find the optimal builds, so you do see a lot of really innovative strategic
play that people love to watch. I really cannot give any examples on this
without explaining many more details about the game. I am interested to hear
why you think Total Annihilation would have more sophistication.

I must admit I haven't played many other games, but I have heard people
complain that either the micromanagement or the multitasking aspect are not as
much on the foreground in other games, and the combination of strategy +
intense multitasking + micromanagement has kept starcraft exciting for both
players and viewers.

~~~
jiggy2011
Most of this could be applied to any strategy game (C&C etc), for example
being able to build efficiently and Micromanage.

I would say that games like TA/Sup Com would seem more "strategical" since
they tend to be bigger in the sense that they have bigger maps and bigger ,
more complex tech trees. You also have more options in terms of setting up
queues and automated behaviours for units (patrolling,ferrying etc) which
means that you don't have to worry about revisiting your base as often because
you have already queued up everything you want built for the next 5-10
minutes. It also allows options such as going into a resource deficit to
produce units you cannot afford (but will be built more slowly).

I suppose this could be said to reduce the importance of the "micromanagement"
aspects of the game (although these can still be important) but I'm not sure
if this is necessarily a bad thing in itself. Professional SC looks to me more
like it is being played on the basis of quick reflexes and drilling build
orders quickly in a sense closer to an action game where you control a lot of
units rather than "strategy" as such, perhaps tactics is a better word.

To me it would seem that as technology advances strategy games should become
less about micromanagement, since in a real war the General does not usually
micromanage the actions of individual soldiers on the scale of "move left, now
fire you gun" etc. Of course a general may make high level decisions such as
how to train their soldiers which will affect how they behave in the field etc
and this could be simulated with AI.

~~~
bbxiao1
Dustin Browder, the lead developer of Starcraft 2 (and previous C&C titles)
did a talk on designing a game for e-sports.

[http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-
STAR...](http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STARCRAFT)

One of the things he mentions about SC1, if I remember correctly is the
limited number of units. If the possible composition of your army increases,
more ways of using the army becomes available. This becomes a detriment
because players spend more time exploring composition than actual strategy.

With regard to your point about automating behaviour, I think this is a more
philosophical question. How much automation should an RTS have/allow? Given
SC1's history as a mechanically intensive game, SC2 attempted to lower the
basic skill level needed to reach a broader audience, but this demand is in
constant struggle with the professional level of SC2.

On micromanagement, the SC2 community seems to regard this as the easiest way
for an e-sports/SC2 newcomer to identify skill. Long-term strategies and the
steps/timings that go into setting them up are fairly guarded secrets among
professional players. While some can be particularly obvious, building a
specific army at a specific time for a specific reason can be difficult to
explain to a newcomer.

SC2 and SC1 certainly do not reflect a "real war," because experience seems to
indicate an e-sports RTS requires elements that would not belong in a "real
war." I think this is a philosophical decision and you might disagree with it.
SC2 was an attempt to capture the popularity of SC1 for a broader audience,
not just S. Korea. To do so, the developers attempted to incorporate the
aspects that they thought would be most popular both to play and to watch.

------
otumm
this documentary seems rushed and too scripted, maybe it could have learned
something from this short video of the broodware scene, in which players were
interviewed before and after a major tournament.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D9NYaE0AH4>

------
aw3c2
Direct link to the video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R2Ep6L5gIA>

It is edited a bit annoyingly but shows a nice view into the personalities of
a esports "family of friends". Definitely recommended.

~~~
cdr
I'm a little disappointed there's no direct download (at least that I can see)
for something they're asking money for. Could rip the youtube video I guess,
but that's extra hassle and probably against the youtube TOS.

~~~
aw3c2
If you are on Linux <http://code.google.com/p/get-flash-videos/> is super easy
and convenient.

I agree about your disappointment.

------
franzus
Wow, what a great way to waste your life.

~~~
AlisdairO
One could take that perspective about most forms of entertainment.

~~~
franzus
Yes but entertainment per se is not bad - if you don't devote your life to it.
Nothing against playing one or two rounds SC2 but becoming a "pro player" is
so disgustingly wasteful. Imagine what you could create with all the time
devoted to gaming instead.

~~~
codesuela
would you say the same to football, hockey or soccer players?

~~~
franzus
Yes.

~~~
codesuela
well then kudos to you for being consistent :)

