|
After re-reading my post and the replies, yeah, it's definitely fairly pointless and a bit whiny, but I do feel it serves to point out a lot of the randomnesses (like damage ranges) that would need to be addressed, though that seems fairly easy to do in retrospect (you simply use the midpoint of the range). I know roots was changed a bit ago, but that's what I get for posting in the middle of work, mea culpa for including that.
I would put WoW as much closer to Starcraft in terms of complexity and what needs to be explained than Counterstrike. Only it's several degrees higher due to their being many more players involved. I imagine a 3v3 Starcraft tournament as being a similar example of complexity. Indeed, I would say a 3v3 Starcraft tournament would possess many of the attributes that seem to hurt 3v3 arena matches in WoW, too much information to process at a given time, very difficult to make a comeback if someone is taken out unless in being taken out they leave the other team in such a position that things can be evened out quickly.
Still, the things that give Starcraft its mass appeal are similar to those in Counterstrike. It's possible to appreciate excellent micro with very little understanding of the game mechanics involved. Seeing someone take out a mass of marines using zerglings while losing little to nothing of their own is something that can be recognized and applauded with only the most fundamental of background information and commentator assistance. This is your 'highlight' footage of the match that can be understood by anyone.
Compare this to macro oriented concepts such as knowing when to expand or build orders where it takes a good deal more background knowledge to appreciate the skill demonstrated. This gives Starcraft a combination of mass appeal and expert appeal that you find in more established professional sports.
For example, your typical down in American Football can be very boring to a casual fan: Running back runs into the line, gains 3 yards. Someone with more knowledge of the sport might appreciate the blocking that was involved to gain those 3 yards, but a casual fan is much more interested in the 80 pass where the receiver breaks three tackles and somersaults over the goal line. Yet he still enjoys the game, despite the fact that the majority of the plays are of the more mundane variety. So, I would not say that a fan needs to understand everything in a game to appreciate it, or that there can't be non-obvious attributes.
I am a casual fan of 3v3 and 5v5 arena, primarily doing BGs and 2v2 myself, and I've been sitting here scratching my head for the past 10 minutes trying to figure out what would make them more accessible, other than the addition of those highlight portions that have mass appeal. Class/Matrix balance isn't a certainly necessity. Consider the NCAA Basketball tournament where some teams are definite underdogs, and that only makes it all the better when they do manage to pull an upset. Really, having one team at a noticeable disadvantage right from the outset can make it all the more appealing assuming they have an appreciable chance of winning; the idea that everyone loves an underdog.
|