Competitive Gaming - E-sports

[Robin.]

Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like making War of the Roses into an esport (competitive gameplay) isn't anywhere on your "to-do" list.

Why that sucks and why you should care

E-sports are getting bigger. Starcraft is leading the way and any games that play their cards right can get a piece of the action. Currently, I play a major role in the Mount&Blade Warband competitive scene and am constantly trying to forward the game as a recognised esport. There is a massive competitive playerbase (well over 1000 players) and they are all looking for the genre to be expanded competitively. However, what's been holding it back is a lack of developer support. Without Taleworlds cooperating with the community to get the game recognised competitively, all the tournaments and community run events have only ever been what we can muster on the forums. What's been achieved there is exceptional but the potential is far greater.

If a supportive developer put just a little bit of attention into making their game viable as an esport, they stand to benefit massively. If a game starts having success and creating a buzz in the competitive arena, the effects can be self-perpetuating. The more popular it gets as a spectator sport, the more people want to try, play and buy the game, which in turn improves the competition and so on. Obviously it could flop competitively and the efforts would go to waste but the amount of work required to make a game viable is actually minimal... as I'll explain.

It's also worth noting that an exceptionally high proportion of multiplayer Mount&Blade Warband players are in competitive clans. Far higher than most online games and since they're going to be something of a target market (or at least a decent sample) it's certainly worth taking not of that as a sign of where demand lies.

What you can do about it

There are a number of things that can be done to make a game viable and give it the best chance of success as an esport.

• Nail the gamemode. Respawn modes are simply no good competitively (for the most part) and certainly wouldn't be appropriate here. What the game really needs is a round-respawn, objective-based gamemode. Hearing that you're going to be shipping with TDM and Siege is really a crushing blow to the idea that you might have given two hoots about competitive play. Think demolition on CS:S but medieval. It could be anything... raise a flag, chop a tree, punch a villager. As long is it works. It also has to work for smaller numbers. I get that general demand is for moar and bigger but really, a competitive game mode ought to be viable at 8vs8.
• Balance things out. Mainly, this needs to be done for maps to make sure all classes are viable.
• Contact ESL. There are other sites but ESL is really the organisition you need to be talking to. The earlier you do so the better because it can only serve to grease the wheels of securing support from them. If they support the game, then the sky is the limit. Not only that but they're bound to have some useful thoughts on the subject as well.
• Make it watchable. Starcraft 2 really put an awful lot of thought into the way things are visually communicated to the spectator, in order to ensure that people will want to keep watching games and stay interested. If it's confusing and convoluted when people are trying to watch a match, then people won't watch it. Simple as that. I mean... there is no set way to go about this but just giving as many visual cues as possible is the key. Make it easy for someone to livestream matches, add in a theatre mode (all games should have this) so people can make their own montage videos etc. The game mode is also a big part of this. For a really entertaining watch, a level of uncertainty ought to be maintained throughout matches. It has to feel like anything can happen or it just won't be interesting.
• EDIT: Reasonably bug-free release. See: Red Orchestra 2 for buggy releases that can kill a game's scene.

I could go into way more detail about any of these things, so don't hesitate to contact me on steam (captain_of_lust) if you want to hear me rambling on about how important this stuff is.

Also, it would be cool if some people had things to add or just wanted to express support for this here. I recognise a lot of faces from the competitive Warband scene lurking around here. No surprises.

You have several valid points, but there are some things I'd like to add.

First of all, competetive play definitely is on the todo list, but it is just that. Before we can even think about implementing all the customisations and support for competetive play we have to nail the core. There definitely is a plan and a design, but before we're 1000% confident in the core play it's premature to start working on these as they are so dependant on the core that when the core changes they will have to be redone.

About esport,
There really are two ways of going into esport as far as I see it. One is to organically grow into it by first building a competetive clan friendly community (CS, SC, etc), the other is to pour millions of dollars into it in prize money, event coverage etc and hope it pans out (Dota 2, LoL, etc). The second method is a lot faster but unfortunately some economic constraints (unless sales at release go very ballistic) will limit what we can do with this method.

Regarding game modes, our siege (or assault might be the latest working name for it) is very similar to what you describe... We also have several other game modes we're working with, the reason for only having two at release is more about not splitting the initial player base too much, keeping it simple and allowing the community to get more involved in what kind of more game modes should be activated post release.

About making it watchable,
It might not be possible to reach SC2s watchability, (CS kinda proves that being so much longer in esports and still not coming close to neither RTS or MOBA) but it would definitely be something we'd look into improving as soon as possible when we get there. There's just so much that has to be made for UI, camera control etc etc. Livestreaming is already very possible though, I've tried that

I hope this at least somewhat clarifies our stance to the whole thing.

EDIT: We also have some quite capable competetive third person melee consultants, so there are people battling for your cause, rest assured

[Baja]

I used to play some NHL games. One of the features I really enjoyed sounds like it will be implemented in this game. That is the tournament mode. The NHL games let me set some leagues up, get teams entered, and then dates were set for matches. It was great.

Games can be watched already. Most of us Warband players into that already have fraps or use cam studios which is free. If you get live streaming or allow us to port video to youtube, great.

Warband has a forum set up, which Captain Lust moderates. That forum is where we, the community, have been making our own events and tournaments for warband. I would advise such a forum for our tournaments and events.

In game though, if a scheduling calendar were implemented, that would be awesome. Even better would be an official tournament for duelers annually. Though it might just be to ambitious. Even the community has a hard time running that kind of an event, and they don't have to worry so much about foresight.

Siege and TDM are great. One thing that the event forum has always tried to accomplish is applying some context, rp, or storyline to them, whatever you want to call it. So if there way to extend the meaning of the TDM instances that would be great. Some games like Dynasty Warriors Empires or Star Wars: Battlefront I & II have a couple great modes.

The best idea in this post:
If there were some way to decide if a specific match was going to count toward a specific event, that would be great. Then the relevance of the match would depend less on the timing, and more on the player's choice.

Also, a pick-up match shout-out marquee or posting board would be cool. Something where I could get on with my friends around 8pm to see that such and such clan wanted to play a scrim. I could go and click on opening a chat to them. That would be great.

Which leads me to the next big thing for clans. Stats not for individuals, but for clans. We want to be able to declare if a match is official, and then keep the score on our clan record. We want to know who we faced, when, and how many rounds we won. If there is enough memory, it is nice to have a record of how many kills and deaths our individual members contributed, or how many wins they took part in.

[ProjectAngel]

I have raised the point about this game needing to have a competitive clan scene in a few different topics and each time the devs have come and put my mind at ease. I'm pretty confident that they understand the importance of getting this part of the game right.

You have several valid points, but there are some things I'd like to add.

First of all, competetive play definitely is on the todo list, but it is just that. Before we can even think about implementing all the customisations and support for competetive play we have to nail the core. There definitely is a plan and a design, but before we're 1000% confident in the core play it's premature to start working on these as they are so dependant on the core that when the core changes they will have to be redone.

About esport,
There really are two ways of going into esport as far as I see it. One is to organically grow into it by first building a competetive clan friendly community (CS, SC, etc), the other is to pour millions of dollars into it in prize money, event coverage etc and hope it pans out (Dota 2, LoL, etc). The second method is a lot faster but unfortunately some economic constraints (unless sales at release go very ballistic) will limit what we can do with this method.

Regarding game modes, our siege (or assault might be the latest working name for it) is very similar to what you describe... We also have several other game modes we're working with, the reason for only having two at release is more about not splitting the initial player base too much, keeping it simple and allowing the community to get more involved in what kind of more game modes should be activated post release.

About making it watchable,
It might not be possible to reach SC2s watchability, (CS kinda proves that being so much longer in esports and still not coming close to neither RTS or MOBA) but it would definitely be something we'd look into improving as soon as possible when we get there. There's just so much that has to be made for UI, camera control etc etc. Livestreaming is already very possible though, I've tried that

I hope this at least somewhat clarifies our stance to the whole thing.

EDIT: We also have some quite capable competetive third person melee consultants, so there are people battling for your cause, rest assured

Right on cue.

[Baja]

.......
Also, a pick-up match shout-out marquee or posting board would be cool. Something where I could get on with my friends around 8pm to see that such and such clan wanted to play a scrim. I could go and click on opening a chat to them. That would be great........

I got thinking about it. A clan game mode would be cool. It could have a duel to start with to determine who picks spawns and who picks the maps. Then the players get to play 3 maps. Each map is played best of 5 rounds. Rounds are 6 minutes. It's how most Warband scrims are played approximately.

Though it might be to ambitious. A DC, intermission, bio break, and other things might be harder to perform if it's automated.

[Sighvatr]

Ha! After two rounds in the game, you see a text in front of your screen that says, "Snack Break!"

[Alex_C]

I got thinking about it. A clan game mode would be cool. It could have a duel to start with to determine who picks spawns and who picks the maps. Then the players get to play 3 maps. Each map is played best of 5 rounds. Rounds are 6 minutes. It's how most Warband scrims are played approximately.

Though it might be to ambitious. A DC, intermission, bio break, and other things might be harder to perform if it's automated.

I think you mean, how most Warband scrims in North America are played.

[Baja]

Oh, what do you Euros do differently?

You should be more productive, and help explain the differences.

[Sighvatr]

I think Europeans play at 1000 gold and on medium speed, unlike North American players who play at Fastest and with 1500 gold.

[captain lust]

You have several valid points, but there are some things I'd like to add.

First of all, competetive play definitely is on the todo list, but it is just that. Before we can even think about implementing all the customisations and support for competetive play we have to nail the core. There definitely is a plan and a design, but before we're 1000% confident in the core play it's premature to start working on these as they are so dependant on the core that when the core changes they will have to be redone.

That's fair enough. Although I'd hope it's at least at the back of your mind when making certain decisions about core gameplay. The most important thing here is to make sure there's enough scope for improvement at the top end of play. Certain games have problems when there's nothing to separate expert players from one another.

I suspect your thinking is that all the customisation and options for tweaking your equipment will cover this. I don't know if that leaves me particularly convinced but we'll see how that plays out.

About esport,
There really are two ways of going into esport as far as I see it. One is to organically grow into it by first building a competetive clan friendly community (CS, SC, etc), the other is to pour millions of dollars into it in prize money, event coverage etc and hope it pans out (Dota 2, LoL, etc). The second method is a lot faster but unfortunately some economic constraints (unless sales at release go very ballistic) will limit what we can do with this method.

Well I guess that's true to an extent. Although there's a lot of variance in the first approach and even if you can't plug money into the competitive scene, there's still a lot of support you can give. Starting early and giving the idea of clan/competitive play within the game some decent publicity (or even a mention - something which hasn't been happening so far) can go a long way. Things like a beta tournament or a "players vs devs" competition might also generate some interest...

Just avoid the Laissez-Faire approach .

Regarding game modes, our siege (or assault might be the latest working name for it) is very similar to what you describe... We also have several other game modes we're working with, the reason for only having two at release is more about not splitting the initial player base too much, keeping it simple and allowing the community to get more involved in what kind of more game modes should be activated post release.

Honestly, I just prefer round-based game modes for competitive play. Mainly because they make ideas of teamwork and cooperation more accessible... I mean I can just see any low level competitive games in a respawn mode feeling an awful lot like playing on a public server and thereby, causing people to lose interest. As soon as you go round-based (i.e. no respawns... perhaps that wasn't clear), that all changes and players will start to feel the buzz. The idea behind your siege mode does seem interesting though and I'm willing to try anything.

About making it watchable,
It might not be possible to reach SC2s watchability, (CS kinda proves that being so much longer in esports and still not coming close to neither RTS or MOBA) but it would definitely be something we'd look into improving as soon as possible when we get there. There's just so much that has to be made for UI, camera control etc etc. Livestreaming is already very possible though, I've tried that

Something I always thought might be an interesting idea is a a spectator mode that automatically follows the action. I mean surely a delay of 10 seconds or so would allow for something in the game to calculate where the action is happening (kill/flag capture or whatever) and move the camera there before it happens on the spectator's screen. If you could nail something like that it would really help with watchability.

Another thing to consider is that right now livestreaming/recording in Warband is particularly hard because there's no real focal point until a flag spawns in Battle mode. Most regular sports have a ball or something to follow, which is where all the action takes place... team games that want to be interesting to watch might do well to find an equivalent focus. That falls under nailing the right game mode.

I hope this at least somewhat clarifies our stance to the whole thing.

EDIT: We also have some quite capable competetive third person melee consultants, so there are people battling for your cause, rest assured

Well that's good to know. I'll keep following progress anyway and I'm hoping to get my hands on the game as soon as possible.

[Beowulf1990]

I think Europeans play at 1000 gold and on medium speed, unlike North American players who play at Fastest and with 1500 gold.

The yanks play on fast? Jeez, that's terrible! I played on a fast server once, it was just a pile of players spamming attacks every which way.

[Sighvatr]

Nay, not on Fast, but on Fastest. Spammers do take advantage of the Fastest setting, but if you're playing competitively, spamming isn't something you can rely on. It is set to that speed, because I think it is to help avoid those long dragged out fights.

[Salahudin]

Warband doesn't allow for spam.
Period.
If you are playing fastest and getting spammed, that means you simply are too slow to react.
We've tested this.

[reapy]

I don't know what prompted the switch from fastest to med in the US, but I feel like it takes away a bit from the game. You can't rechamber attacks as much, some other faster weapons besides the spear 'combo' more, and it makes warpy weird animations a bit harder to see.

I mean I can see why it ended up that way in NA, the remaining players seem to favor offensive oriented feint heavy gameplay, and fastest supports that and makes that style more interesting/challenging.

I'm someone who liked to sit back and use timing to land my hits, so with smaller swing windows to use that timing, it just doesn't work out as well for me. It is also somewhat crazy when you step back and think about how almost imperceptible the swing speed change is, yet how much it can competently mess with players ability to play the game.

I know I'm like a broken record, but I really hope that things that alter the game at this level stay well clear of server settings and instead become exposed through a moding system. It is a very small detail, but one that messes everyone up when it changes. It is one of those things that should be a constant throughout the game.

[Salahudin]

Yeah I'd rather have one speed that the game has so that these small things cause less rifts in the community in the future.

[Beowulf1990]

Nay, not on Fast, but on Fastest. Spammers do take advantage of the Fastest setting, but if you're playing competitively, spamming isn't something you can rely on. It is set to that speed, because I think it is to help avoid those long dragged out fights.

You mean the good ones? -_-

I once had a duel with a clanmate of mine, swords only that lasted for over 5 minutes. Doesn't sound that much, but go ahead and try it. If we were playing on fastest, it would have probably been done with in 5 seconds. The setting just makes the tolerance for error in a proper fight ridiculously low and it makes a spammer's life quite a bit easier. Don't deny that, it just does.

[captain lust]

Warband doesn't allow for spam.
Period.
If you are playing fastest and getting spammed, that means you simply are too slow to react.
We've tested this.

No one is saying that you can rely on spam when playing fastest speed. No one is saying it's an instakill or guaranteed to succeed.

Spam is an important counter to excessive feinting/holding and general wankery. Without it the possibility to attack twice within a reasonable space of time, the game would suffer tremendously.

However, on fastest speed, it becomes a much more prevalent and effective form of play. To the extent which, in my opinion, it reduces the depth of melee combat as a whole. Creativity and reactive play suffers because you need to place much more focus on being ready to block twice in a row, should your opponent choose to spam.

I'm saying that as a player who plays both speeds regularly and competitively.

[B0gatyr]

I hope WotR receive more attention from developers to network events than well-known project M&B.
Many would like to see it in the eSports WotR it certainly would add popularity. If, in the official tournaments held WotR - it would be great!
We can start then go to the ESL.

I recognise a lot of faces from the competitive Warband scene lurking around here. No surprises.

Hello, Lust

[Snuffeldjuret]

(Shameless semi-necro as I didn't find anything more fresh)

The main reason i bought WotR was for the competitive potential =). It looks to be simple enough to understand and relate too, making it fun to watch. Also hopefully deep and difficult enough to make it fun to play, even in the long run!

[NeuD]

1st Native league came a year after the Warband's beta. By the time our RS-clan already tired of playing. In the end - we had a great start and a vague ending playtime. I hope that the league in WotR there much faster.

[ProjectAngel]

1st Native league came a year after the Warband's beta. By the time our RS-clan already tired of playing. In the end - we had a great start and a vague ending playtime. I hope that the league in WotR there much faster.

I'm sure it will.