86 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 April 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

You gave us everything exept the thing that you based your conclusion on. What evidence do you have to support that it doesn't have the potential.

Because if I talked to Bandit, he would probably have a different idea.

I simply mean right now. While I'm still just barely into the data it's already pretty clear that there's a lot of difference between a viable e-sports franchise team and 8 players playing MWO. People picking up the franchise want a certainty that there are qualified people to play any and every relevant match and that when they sell ad space and sponsorships that they'll be delivered upon effectively.

Most the pro esports teams that have drawn solid sponsorship and the financial backing to turn into a franchise (get bought) had a bench of 3-5 teams per game they played plus a mile long list of trainee/potentials that they practiced against and were being developed into a potential new fill for an empty seat. Plus admin and leadership.

E-sports has changed a LOT in the last 2 years and especially the last 8 months. It's a business and it's the fastest growing and most successful business for putting targeted ads in front of people in a position to connect with them. Also the depth of the market is just ****ing insane. Just stupid insane. Home now but I was going over viewership. Some of the big esports leagues already have a bigger viewship than all but 2 major sports, did you know that? The 3 year projected growth has esports with the biggest active pool of pops of any single sport in the world - including soccer.

Thing about that for a second.

Now pair that with the dramatically superior ability to serve up targeted ads individually to each of them by market, even stacked with targeted offers (like discounts, etc). It's even got the ability to functionally tell if the person WATCHED the ad. Click rate, connection rate, views, etc. E-sports is now what the Super Bowl was in the 2000s from an advertising revenue perspective.

The CEO of my company was at one of the meetings to bid on franchises for the new Overwatch league. It was off the hook; there's stupid money looking for a home in esports right now. I'm not a cheap date - I usually get pulled for projects that involve a lot of money and so I thought it was funny I got pulled to help business case up potentials for sponsorship and franchises for e-sports....

Until I saw the numbers.

Obviously nobody is seriously shopping for MWO right now but I'm trying to wrap my head around the WHY and what differentiates a 'not worth it' from a 'worth it' environment. It's not the game; all Overwatch has going for it is familiarity (which is critical) and a 'fun' gameplay experience. There's a lot of luck to it however, same problem with CoD and conversely why DOTA 2 is so popular, as was/is StarCraft - strategy in consumer sports has a strong draw. MWO has that facet down plus potential entertainment value but could it populate a professional league if one even existed? Why or why not?

[BLOOD WOLF]

you know that's a tough one. I would also have agreed on over watches familiarity. most players like with any shooter, would find it easy to pick up and play. Now, that doesn't mean its easy to pick up and go pro, but if the controls and dynamic is intuitive enough especially for the human brain. People will stick with it.

it also went a long way that celebrities also played the game(overwatch). Throwing in things people can relate to. Also once again with starcraft II. I believe more so its the type of game. now while not pro,, I did play diamond in starcraft II. I also played competitive total war. Those games while kinda different are intuitive as hell. What I really think helped those games out, both of them is that CA and Blizzard already had a huge base. Keep in mind when Blizzard first ran something of a league it was nowhere near as big as it was now, same with CA.

I think if PGI and HBS and catalyst or whoever else. really markets this game. beyond the local level, in just a few years we can have a growth that we haven't seen before. With a large player base a percentage of that just goes into competitive play.

So it's just a mix and mash of well known titles with familiarity, intuitive gameplay(meaning is this something that is easy to learn, and can I repeat it). Also just marketing to as much people as possible.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 12 April 2017 - 05:41 PM.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2017 - 05:23 PM, said:

I simply mean right now. While I'm still just barely into the data it's already pretty clear that there's a lot of difference between a viable e-sports franchise team and 8 players playing MWO. People picking up the franchise want a certainty that there are qualified people to play any and every relevant match and that when they sell ad space and sponsorships that they'll be delivered upon effectively.

Most the pro esports teams that have drawn solid sponsorship and the financial backing to turn into a franchise (get bought) had a bench of 3-5 teams per game they played plus a mile long list of trainee/potentials that they practiced against and were being developed into a potential new fill for an empty seat. Plus admin and leadership.

E-sports has changed a LOT in the last 2 years and especially the last 8 months. It's a business and it's the fastest growing and most successful business for putting targeted ads in front of people in a position to connect with them. Also the depth of the market is just ****ing insane. Just stupid insane. Home now but I was going over viewership. Some of the big esports leagues already have a bigger viewship than all but 2 major sports, did you know that? The 3 year projected growth has esports with the biggest active pool of pops of any single sport in the world - including soccer.

Thing about that for a second.

Now pair that with the dramatically superior ability to serve up targeted ads individually to each of them by market, even stacked with targeted offers (like discounts, etc). It's even got the ability to functionally tell if the person WATCHED the ad. Click rate, connection rate, views, etc. E-sports is now what the Super Bowl was in the 2000s from an advertising revenue perspective.

The CEO of my company was at one of the meetings to bid on franchises for the new Overwatch league. It was off the hook; there's stupid money looking for a home in esports right now. I'm not a cheap date - I usually get pulled for projects that involve a lot of money and so I thought it was funny I got pulled to help business case up potentials for sponsorship and franchises for e-sports....

Until I saw the numbers.

Obviously nobody is seriously shopping for MWO right now but I'm trying to wrap my head around the WHY and what differentiates a 'not worth it' from a 'worth it' environment. It's not the game; all Overwatch has going for it is familiarity (which is critical) and a 'fun' gameplay experience. There's a lot of luck to it however, same problem with CoD and conversely why DOTA 2 is so popular, as was/is StarCraft - strategy in consumer sports has a strong draw. MWO has that facet down plus potential entertainment value but could it populate a professional league if one even existed? Why or why not?

Unless PGI revamps the NPE and makes multiple elements of comp play actually usable (not just minimally viable), it still has a long way to go to even get that kind of attention. You can't create a presence when you have a sieve that is the NPE that makes the decision to stay that much harder as frustration or purpose is lacking.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2017 - 06:16 PM.

[MischiefSC]

BLOOD WOLF, on 12 April 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

you know that's a tough one. I would also have agreed on over watches familiarity. most players like with any shooter, would find it easy to pick up and play. Now, that doesn't mean its easy to pick up and go pro, but if the controls and dynamic is intuitive enough especially for the human brain. People will stick with it.

it also went a long way that celebrities also played the game(overwatch). Throwing in things people can relate to. Also once again with starcraft II. I believe more so its the type of game. now while not pro,, I did play diamond in starcraft II. I also played competitive total war. Those games while kinda different are intuitive as hell. What I really think helped those games out, both of them is that CA and Blizzard already had a huge base. Keep in mind when Blizzard first ran something of a league it was nowhere near as big as it was now, same with CA.

I think if PGI and HBS and catalyst or whoever else. really markets this game. beyond the local level, in just a few years we can have a growth that we haven't seen before. With a large player base a percentage of that just goes into competitive play.

So it's just a mix and mash of well known titles with familiarity, intuitive gameplay(meaning is this something that is easy to learn, and can I repeat it). Also just marketing to as much people as possible.

Celebrities get paid to advertise playing a game. There's a lot of viable ways to spend advertising dollars to draw attention - the bigger issue is can you deal with it when you've got it.

Even cheaper is getting some well known streamers to play your game.

Drawing attention can be done with money. That's easy.

The difficulty to get into the game is a legit issue - however, again, with e-sports there's a larger market than just people who play it. By a huge margin in fact. Much like regular sports.

I'm struggling with how you create a comp environment that could support/sustain an actual pro esports attention.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Celebrities get paid to advertise playing a game. There's a lot of viable ways to spend advertising dollars to draw attention - the bigger issue is can you deal with it when you've got it.

Even cheaper is getting some well known streamers to play your game.

Drawing attention can be done with money. That's easy.

The difficulty to get into the game is a legit issue - however, again, with e-sports there's a larger market than just people who play it. By a huge margin in fact. Much like regular sports.

I'm struggling with how you create a comp environment that could support/sustain an actual pro esports attention.

There's been like two mobile games as of "recent" (not really, but whatever) that spent some dough on notable celebs to advertise the game (one most can't stop staring at, the other has "teh choppah") and while it sounds like a great idea on paper, you have to actually have a good game to pull that off.

The reality is that a good game sells itself. Celebs popularity is a bonus.

[Davegt27]

Home now but I was going over viewership. Some of the big esports leagues already have a bigger viewship than all but 2 major sports, did you know that?

No but I knew something was up
You see I am new to online gaming and it turns out there is a whole subculture

There are more then a few that just do reviews on games

Then you have the streamers which is so strange the player has a camera on themselves
So you can watch them as they play (talk about bizarro)

Next I watched two world championship computer games on prime time TV last year
http://www.cnbc.com/...-primetime.html

[RAM]

Dakota1000, on 11 April 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

it will be glorious 8v8 instead of 12v12.

There is nothing glorious nor 'comp' about 8v8


RAM
ELH

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

There's been like two mobile games as of "recent" (not really, but whatever) that spent some dough on notable celebs to advertise the game (one most can't stop staring at, the other has "teh choppah") and while it sounds like a great idea on paper, you have to actually have a good game to pull that off.

The reality is that a good game sells itself. Celebs popularity is a bonus.

If you think any celeb who's been known to play a game wasn't paid to make that public with the likely exception of Vin Diesel and Felicia Day you're mistaken. Even most popular streamers are paid to feature games sometimes. Both of which have industry standard rates.

Don't mistake adverts and sponsorship for promotion. You can hire celebs and recognized nsmes in a field by the tweet to mention you or tag you.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2017 - 07:05 PM, said:

If you think any celeb who's been known to play a game wasn't paid to make that public with the likely exception of Vin Diesel and Felicia Day you're mistaken. Even most popular streamers are paid to feature games sometimes. Both of which have industry standard rates.

Don't mistake adverts and sponsorship for promotion. You can hire celebs and recognized nsmes in a field by the tweet to mention you or tag you.

Yea, it's not unsurprising. Only a few would admit to being unpaid to advertise (probably/primarily because they already liked the product). It is a business after all.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2017 - 07:09 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 06:15 PM, said:

Unless PGI revamps the NPE and makes multiple elements of comp play actually usable (not just minimally viable), it still has a long way to go to even get that kind of attention. You can't create a presence when you have a sieve that is the NPE that makes the decision to stay that much harder as frustration or purpose is lacking.

Put the idea of attention aside. That's a business manageable issue. Money and favors can create attention if you have something worth putting it on.

While I'm a huge proponent of the NPE, that's not related to comp play. Over 400 MILLION people are projected, conservatively, to be watching e-sports consistently (as consistently as they do live sports) by the end of 2018. Facebook touts a billion pops but the market is wide and, in spite of FB trying to market their model, unreliable to serve ads to relative to more invested mediums. People look at FB in their spare time. Sports adverts are important because of the level of connection - historically a good, funny super bowl ad could directly translate to significant changes in brand recognition and sales.

I could math nerd on it all day but the simple point is that e-sports engagement goes way, way beyond active game populations. NPE is important, sure, but if the matches themselves are fun to watch and the teams are there with good sponsorship it's not nearly as big a deal.

The question is, if suddenly the recognition issue solved itself could comp teams of 20+ people in large enough numbers come together to make it engaging?

[Monkey Lover]

Im still hoping for 1v1,2v2

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

Put the idea of attention aside. That's a business manageable issue. Money and favors can create attention if you have something worth putting it on.

While I'm a huge proponent of the NPE, that's not related to comp play. Over 400 MILLION people are projected, conservatively, to be watching e-sports consistently (as consistently as they do live sports) by the end of 2018. Facebook touts a billion pops but the market is wide and, in spite of FB trying to market their model, unreliable to serve ads to relative to more invested mediums. People look at FB in their spare time. Sports adverts are important because of the level of connection - historically a good, funny super bowl ad could directly translate to significant changes in brand recognition and sales.

I could math nerd on it all day but the simple point is that e-sports engagement goes way, way beyond active game populations. NPE is important, sure, but if the matches themselves are fun to watch and the teams are there with good sponsorship it's not nearly as big a deal.

The question is, if suddenly the recognition issue solved itself could comp teams of 20+ people in large enough numbers come together to make it engaging?

You have to actually "build" comp teams.

It's not as if the comp scene isn't unfamiliar to burnout or people just leaving the scene.

Part of it is balance - bad balance tends to foster an unhealthy meta. It's not an understatement when metas are left inexplicably longer than they should be, especially when there are weak counters (LRMs don't count, because it has too many counters). Brawling was fairly weak in the older version of the PPC meta. That's not really healthy.

Getting people to be interested requires league presence... whether it be multiple leagues or multiple levels or multiple rules (to show diversity in play).

You can't magically create comp teams... part of it starts with interest, but mostly accessibility. If I had to tell you to even get a crapton of C-bills to get the mechs you really need for comp (because it's true and you know it), it'll be a PITA for most. You don't have "gating" that doesn't exist in Overwatch (because every character is accessible to all immediately).

So, you have to do a lot in the inner workings of the game before you even foster the creation of a comp team. Most comp teams are built from lots of experience.. whether it be this game or others (conceptually) and this game mostly caters to the casuals... which is a completely different group/audience.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2017 - 07:31 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

The question is, if suddenly the recognition issue solved itself could comp teams of 20+ people in large enough numbers come together to make it engaging?

I think the answer to that is yes. overall it's because we understand why people tend to stick around. It's deriving pleasure from whatever they are doing. if people enjoy playing mechwarrior odds are they might enjoy watching it. more people stick around after a match to watch it than they disconnect. People like to project themselves onto the arena as well to make themselves feel more engaged. They invest themselves into the teams, and the sports as fans. Eventually it will grow.

If the matches are entertaining most importantly then people will most likely continue to watch and even recommend it to others. It is indeed complicated, and I don't know why people here like the things they do. Funny how that works, but in terms of adverstising, PGI could do a bit more.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 12 April 2017 - 07:40 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

You can't magically create comp teams... part of it starts with interest, but mostly accessibility. If I had to tell you to even get a crapton of C-bills to get the mechs you really need for comp (because it's true and you know it), it'll be a PITA for most. You don't have "gating" that doesn't exist in Overwatch (because every character is accessible to all immediately).

And this right here is why I miss the days of MW4, because you could build any mech, and as many mechs as you want. This game was not designed with the correct way of monetization to really foster quick introduction to comp with all the grinding that is required.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

And this right here is why I miss the days of MW4, because you could build any mech, and as many mechs as you want. This game was not designed with the correct way of monetization to really foster quick introduction to comp with all the grinding that is required.

It's self-defeating for comp play creation honestly.

I'm not even sure if a suggestion for "free consumables" would even fly in PGI's plans for comp. The problem becomes magnified for so many other things too.

MWO Tagline For Comp Play said:

It's not cheap to get into comp.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

You have to actually "build" comp teams.

It's not as if the comp scene isn't unfamiliar to burnout or people just leaving the scene.

Part of it is balance - bad balance tends to foster an unhealthy meta. It's not an understatement when metas are left inexplicably longer than they should be, especially when there are weak counters (LRMs don't count, because it has too many counters). Brawling was fairly weak in the older version of the PPC meta. That's not really healthy.

Getting people to be interested requires league presence... whether it be multiple leagues or multiple levels or multiple rules (to show diversity in play).

You can't magically create comp teams... part of it starts with interest, but mostly accessibility. If I had to tell you to even get a crapton of C-bills to get the mechs you really need for comp (because it's true and you know it), it'll be a PITA for most. You don't have "gating" that doesn't exist in Overwatch (because every character is accessible to all immediately).

So, you have to do a lot in the inner workings of the game before you even foster the creation of a comp team. Most comp teams are built from lots of experience.. whether it be this game or others (conceptually) and this game mostly caters to the casuals... which is a completely different group/audience.

All good logic.

You're absolutely correct about multiple leagues - which you need. All of them a bit different. 4, 1 for every 3 months, is about ideal. You can go with 1 a year but you'd need seasonal qualifiers or the like. You need something important every 3 months, give or take.

You need enough teams to make that interesting.

Sponsors/purchase of a franchise (to then pay players directly and run the sponsorship deals themselves directly for profit) seems to have no appetite for bench risk. The number one e-sports franchise in the US is EG, which is owned by Twitch as a proxy for Amazon. It's over 100 players on the payroll and many, many more on tap to fill those seats training at any given time. They run teams in a lot of games but you'll generally see a bench size of 20 active, paid players on teams for games that drop in 4v4. Then they have a list of people training with/against them to fill any of those seats if they open up.

You could build interest in a single MWO e-sports event over 120 days for as little as $250k in advertising. You'd want to start with youtube and mobile ads about the game so it's in the subconscious (people will have seen it even if they didn't care), then some popular streamers playing some matches or just bringing it up, then some minor celebs (especially in the gaming industry) mentioning it in a tweet or FB.

The math of getting attention has already been done. The great thing about e-sports is the fighting for viewership isn't that fierce if you time your seasons to not compete.

So you get a bunch of people to watch a MWO league match....

what are they going to see?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

And this right here is why I miss the days of MW4, because you could build any mech, and as many mechs as you want. This game was not designed with the correct way of monetization to really foster quick introduction to comp with all the grinding that is required.

So how do you change the game to foster interest and adoption of comp play?

I don't mean people showing up to comp matches, I mean competitive pro league teams. You'd need to decide who 'owns' the team, approach it like a business because if you're successful it'll become one.

Could you make a 'comp play bundle' for mechs for $X that PGI discounts for teams who sign up to and commit to playing in at least one league?

I don't think it's insulting to say PGI doesn't understand comp play well enough to even start making the game e-sports ready. If they did we'd already be there.

So assume that an e-sports ready comp team needs 20+ active players consisting of your 'Top 8' and 2 layers of backup. Think of it like 2nd and 3rd string and as people to consistently scrim with. Assume that the business expectation is 35-40 hours of playtime a week. While obviously not everyone can do that prior to a sponsorship it would be something looming as an expectation. Assume you've got to have a team playing in at least 3 tournaments a year.

What do you need to do that? How many teams do you think could be made?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

It's self-defeating for comp play creation honestly.

I'm not even sure if a suggestion for "free consumables" would even fly in PGI's plans for comp. The problem becomes magnified for so many other things too.

They could've fixed that with private lobbies allowing everything and having its own mechlab. Not everyone is going to flock to private lobbies then just to play the game (with everything unlocked, and even then, you can lock out special cosmetics unless you have paid for them) because most players don't care and there is no server browser so filling a lobby takes coordination anyway. Tying quickplay into faction warfare somehow would doubly help with the perceived issue of allowing everything in private lobbies. If playing in quickplay somehow affected the map just like faction warfare main stuff did, that's where I would spend down time.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 April 2017 - 07:58 PM.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

what are they going to see?

At the best, you'll see MRBC.

The thing is, not everyone is going to get it. The shoot robots thing is easy enough, but builds and other stuff like teamplay is a bit more complicated.

Quote

So how do you change the game to foster interest and adoption of comp play?

I don't mean people showing up to comp matches, I mean competitive pro league teams. You'd need to decide who 'owns' the team, approach it like a business because if you're successful it'll become one.

Could you make a 'comp play bundle' for mechs for $X that PGI discounts for teams who sign up to and commit to playing in at least one league?

I don't think it's insulting to say PGI doesn't understand comp play well enough to even start making the game e-sports ready. If they did we'd already be there.

So assume that an e-sports ready comp team needs 20+ active players consisting of your 'Top 8' and 2 layers of backup. Think of it like 2nd and 3rd string and as people to consistently scrim with. Assume that the business expectation is 35-40 hours of playtime a week. While obviously not everyone can do that prior to a sponsorship it would be something looming as an expectation. Assume you've got to have a team playing in at least 3 tournaments a year.

What do you need to do that? How many teams do you think could be made?

I wouldn't know, but I'm sure there's not enough legitimate teams (well, specifically players) to do this with.

[justcallme A S H]

BanditB17, on 12 April 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

I hope some unknown group of puggies get together and manage to make it to the finals. That would be one hell of a story.

True, it would. However, reality is real.

Dakota1000, on 12 April 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

I stated that I did not read the summary due to being unable to find it and was asking for the source so that I could see it myself.

My bad, thought you said you didn't watch, but read. Anywhere the summary of the comp stuff, is in the comp section of the forum
TAAAA DDAAAA

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

If 8-mans are only allowed in that new queue, it's gonna have sporadic usage (aka we know this as FP/CW).

Oh now now. How dare you suggest past history offers any insight into what will happen in the future.with regards to population and queue times :rolleyes.jpg:

More seriously, most here know what'll happen.

The 8v8 queue and it's use will come down to the COMMUNITY having to organise itself with massive "fight nights" and similar given the massive disparity and, IMO, the low amount of people that'll be using it which will be much lower than say MRBC, which is division based so matches are at least semi even.

[justcallme A S H]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 April 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

And this right here is why I miss the days of MW4, because you could build any mech, and as many mechs as you want. This game was not designed with the correct way of monetization to really foster quick introduction to comp with all the grinding that is required.

Deathlike, on 12 April 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

It's self-defeating for comp play creation honestly.

I'm not even sure if a suggestion for "free consumables" would even fly in PGI's plans for comp. The problem becomes magnified for so many other things too.

Reading the discussion and this only came up at the end, I was about to get worried it wouldn't be mentioned

It's fine for things like SC2, DOTA etc. You don't have to grind for 12 months or grind every time a new mech/content comes out. The other games that you paid for once off $70 for, give you all of that for FREE and it comes BALANCED, maybe not perfectly, but it's pretty damn close.

MWO misses the boat on both balance and the Grind/F2P bit. They are the key reasons MWO will never be a big e-sport. No matter what Russ has going on in his fairyland head, it'll never happen.