Professional Starcraft Team releases documentary with pay-what-you-want model(teamliquidpro.com)
teamliquidpro.com
Professional Starcraft Team releases documentary with pay-what-you-want model
http://www.teamliquidpro.com/liquidrising/
56 comments
A rising tide lifts all boats.
I really think all of the SC2 teams take that to heart.
I really think all of the SC2 teams take that to heart.
Agreed.
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.
...
???
Sure, it's a video. And it has something about Team Liquid.
...
???
It's a documentary about Team Liquid. If you know what a documentary is, and you know who Team Liquid is, you know what you're getting.
Look at the "biographical documentaries" category on Netflix: the descriptions are mostly in the form of "[narrator name] brings you the [adjective] story of [topic]" with little or no elaboration.
Look at the "biographical documentaries" category on Netflix: the descriptions are mostly in the form of "[narrator name] brings you the [adjective] story of [topic]" with little or no elaboration.
And I don't watch half of them unless I'm bored and desperate for something, anything, to watch in a hotel room.
They could put up a quick blurb and a trailer. I'll spend a few minutes on a trailer for virtually anything. Especially for a 'pay what you want' movie. The fact that it's about a subject I've so far had no interest in is irrelevant if it looks like a decent film.
They could put up a quick blurb and a trailer. I'll spend a few minutes on a trailer for virtually anything. Especially for a 'pay what you want' movie. The fact that it's about a subject I've so far had no interest in is irrelevant if it looks like a decent film.
So pay nothing and watch the first few minutes of the movie, and decide if you want to watch the rest. Then pay what you want.
To be fair after the first 15 minutes it isn't much of a documentary, more of an interview of the individual players. Not much of a story line.
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.
Because you were referred to the site by a link on HN, for one.
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.
Even if it doesn't, you can bypass the login/donation and watch the documentary before you decide how much it is worth.
doubt anyone would end up on their website not knowing who they are
Their community forum is the most popular non-Korean place for strategy discussion. I think many people get here without particularly caring about TeamLiquid itself.
Their community forum is the most popular non-Korean place for strategy discussion. I think many people get here without particularly caring about TeamLiquid itself.
FYI, the proper domain is teamliquid.net
teamliquid.net is the community site
teamliquidpro.com is the team proper's site
I suppose it's a bit confusing because information about this is plastered all over both the community and team sites.
As an aside, it is mildly amusing that EG, another popular US SC2 team, fronted 666 dollars.
teamliquidpro.com is the team proper's site
I suppose it's a bit confusing because information about this is plastered all over both the community and team sites.
As an aside, it is mildly amusing that EG, another popular US SC2 team, fronted 666 dollars.
Well, you can watch it first and pay later... I don't think there's any better way to know what you are buying. :)
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).
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
~~~
- 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STAR...
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.
> 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.
That's a naive view. Flash, the best Starcraft player ever, was not known for being a particularly fast player. What makes him so good is his decision making. It's not just how fast you play, but WHAT you spend your limited attention on that separates a champion/pro-player from your average top-tier player. Also, the fast-paced nature of Starcraft is incredibly engaging for the viewers--there's always something to focus on, from the large big battles, to a small harassment play, to armies simply jockeying for position.
That's a naive view. Flash, the best Starcraft player ever, was not known for being a particularly fast player. What makes him so good is his decision making. It's not just how fast you play, but WHAT you spend your limited attention on that separates a champion/pro-player from your average top-tier player. Also, the fast-paced nature of Starcraft is incredibly engaging for the viewers--there's always something to focus on, from the large big battles, to a small harassment play, to armies simply jockeying for position.
Not sure why I got so many downvotes here?
In this presentation given at the Game Developer's Conference, a designer from SCII describes how they specifically tailored the game to be an e-sport.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STAR...
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STAR...
I think it is because Blizzard is so careful about balancing the game, resulting in an immense diversity of available strategies. These become apparent once both players are sufficiently close enough in skill to be able to "spam" the same number of units out.
I far prefer playing Supreme Commander -- by letting you queue, zoom out arbitrarily, etc., it de-emphasizes micro and APM.
I think people just like watching high APM.
I think people just like watching high APM.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D9NYaE0AH4
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.
It is edited a bit annoyingly but shows a nice view into the personalities of a esports "family of friends". Definitely recommended.
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.
If you are on Linux http://code.google.com/p/get-flash-videos/ is super easy and convenient.
I agree about your disappointment.
I agree about your disappointment.
Wow, what a great way to waste your life.
I lament the overlarge emphasis on entertainment careers by the general populace as much as anyone who will lament such things but.
Humanity must progress more than technologically, it must also progress culturally. What point is there to conquer diseases and have personal fusion if there is no entertainment to relax with? Some people enjoy relaxing by watching impressive displays of human ability; whether it be in sports, athletics, dancing or games. I do not watch much sports and not at all games but I can at least admire the mental acuity, precision reflex, long and short range planning and working memory of the top performers. But for the people who watch it I am sure it brings them enjoyment and happiness. That is a definite contribution to humanity.
There should be a profusion of ethical (not to be confused with politically lobbied) cultural artifacts to match the diverse whims and interests of humanity. A future where there is only a limited amount of scheduled scientifically approved things to do is not a future to look forward to.
Humanity must progress more than technologically, it must also progress culturally. What point is there to conquer diseases and have personal fusion if there is no entertainment to relax with? Some people enjoy relaxing by watching impressive displays of human ability; whether it be in sports, athletics, dancing or games. I do not watch much sports and not at all games but I can at least admire the mental acuity, precision reflex, long and short range planning and working memory of the top performers. But for the people who watch it I am sure it brings them enjoyment and happiness. That is a definite contribution to humanity.
There should be a profusion of ethical (not to be confused with politically lobbied) cultural artifacts to match the diverse whims and interests of humanity. A future where there is only a limited amount of scheduled scientifically approved things to do is not a future to look forward to.
How is this wasting your life? These guys are young - instead of working low paid, boring jobs to pay off student debt and finance an alcohol addiction they're doing something they love, travelling the world, making some money, all while they're barely out of high school. None of these guys will have any problems getting into a reputable university if they choose to study, and they are even building their own brands & networks (through sponsors etc) that they can use once they stop playing.
One could take that perspective about most forms of entertainment.
[deleted]
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.
I'm not sure why you would take that attitude towards pro playing/sportsmen/whatever - if you accept that entertainment is good (in moderation), surely you accept that providing that entertainment is a worthwhile activity too?
I have a stereotypically productive job, and I'm good at it (and enjoy it). Nothing spectacular, but you probably wouldn't sneer at it either. The reality is that I almost certainly bring less useful value to people's lives than a really good quality entertainer.
I have a stereotypically productive job, and I'm good at it (and enjoy it). Nothing spectacular, but you probably wouldn't sneer at it either. The reality is that I almost certainly bring less useful value to people's lives than a really good quality entertainer.
Would you say the same about professional athletes or chess players?
Yes, what they do is not creative at all. Their contribution to the progress humanity is 0.
It's all a matter of perspective. Nearly everyone has a hobby that they care about to an unusual extent. Some people go to the gym for 6 hours a day, Some people buy $30k in parts for their $4000 used Honda Civic, some people go backpacking across Europe for an entire summer, some people care so much that they literally cry whenever their local sports team loses(or wins), and some people love videogames.
Every person on the planet needs to be entertained, and since there is someone out there who does make significant contributions to society that does like Starcraft enough to watch a documentary about a popular team, it must have some inherent amount of worth.
Being an entertainer isn't the same thing as curing cancer or engineering a cease-fire between warring nations, but it doesn't have to be.
Every person on the planet needs to be entertained, and since there is someone out there who does make significant contributions to society that does like Starcraft enough to watch a documentary about a popular team, it must have some inherent amount of worth.
Being an entertainer isn't the same thing as curing cancer or engineering a cease-fire between warring nations, but it doesn't have to be.
Now I'm really curious what you do for a living/what you'd consider your own contribution to progress for humanity?
I've to admit that I don't think that I can claim to have made some significant improvements for all of humanity so far..
I've to admit that I don't think that I can claim to have made some significant improvements for all of humanity so far..
Not that I entirely disagree with you, but it's not like spending time building some (website/social network/photo app/coupon newsletter/mobile game/etc) contributes that much more to humanity either. Glass houses and all.
So, "Do what you love.. as long as it's programming." (or science, etc)
Hah, "Contribution to the progress of humanity". As if that's some kind of ultimate goal that everyone has to strive for.
I presume by "not creative" you do not mean "don't create anything". Can you explain what you do actually mean?
would you say the same to football, hockey or soccer players?
I suppose you could argue that football etc provide exercise and might encourage others to take up a healthier lifestyle by exercising too.
Whereas pro starcraft almost seems to promote the opposite.
Whereas pro starcraft almost seems to promote the opposite.
You could say the same about programming. There are fat football players and fit Starcraft players. Exercise isn't just good for the body, it's good for the mind. The world's best Starcraft 2 player, LG-IMMvp, works out on a regular basis because it helps keep his mind agile. So do many other pros and aspiring pros.
True, but programming has (or should have) a useful end product that is seen as "compensation" for spending all those hours cooped up inside whereas a "sport" activity doesn't really create anything.
I'm sure that some SC players do work out, but for every player who does I imagine there are hundreds where their time playing video games eats into time that they may have otherwise spent exercising.
I'm sure that some SC players do work out, but for every player who does I imagine there are hundreds where their time playing video games eats into time that they may have otherwise spent exercising.
Yes.
well then kudos to you for being consistent :)
Dude, that kind of thinking leads you down to 7 Pounds.
It teaches young people that with hard work and persistance one can achieve amazing feats. I think it is rather inspiring.
Besides, even if they didn't, and were just on some net community making lame comments and contributing nothing of worth to the world, who says they have to?
Besides, even if they didn't, and were just on some net community making lame comments and contributing nothing of worth to the world, who says they have to?
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.