So the limitations of eating chicken are very big, but this game is so popular that it's unimaginable.

And the popularity of a game will definitely bring all kinds of competitions.

Now there are more and more competitions, and naturally they are getting better and better, but there are still many problems.

The audience is willing to buy it or because of the love of the game and the recognition of authority, and they want to know which team is the best in this game.

But if there is such a thing as a plug-in, the authority of the game will be gone, and the audience will lose the desire to watch the game.

If no one watches a competition, then it is completely meaningless.

The North American player's point of view also represents the attitude of a considerable number of professional players: PUBG, as a survival shooter, needs to be further explored and tried in terms of the game perspective used in competitive competitions.

The viewing of "eating chicken" is insufficient, and if a game wants to succeed in e-sports, it is of course inseparable from good game viewing. No matter what type of e-sports game it is, the progressive viewing effect of several stages such as pre-game preparation, early temptation, mid-stage firefight, and late climax is relatively acceptable to the audience.

Judging from the game of "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds", the game of "Chicken" needs to be further evaluated. After all, e-sports is not a live game broadcast, even if the live broadcast of "eating chicken" is hot, it can't explain the game itself, watching a person play and watching a game are two completely different concepts.

It can be seen that some time ago in the Cologne Games Show competition in Germany, most of the players of "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" adopted a more conservative game strategy.

The phenomenon was intensified at The International IEM in Oakland, USA, in November.

Most of the teams in the early stage of the game are completely free of aggression****, and the first 10-15 minutes are basically spent picking up equipment, scouting, and rushing.

In several matches, 20 minutes have passed and 60 players are still alive.

As a spectator, Sun Yaosheng can take a nap after the game starts and then wake up to watch the game, after all, it is really a little distracting to watch in the early stage of the game.

One game designer who watched the IEM Invitational voiced his concerns: "I have a lot of people around me who can't help but look at their phones during the game and wait for the final stage of the tournament to come. ”

The conservative and boring in the early stage means fierce conflict and firefighting in the later stage. However, although the battles in the game are intense, it does not mean that the matches will be more enjoyable.

Because there are so many people. The perspective simply cannot take care of all the players, let alone provide the audience with an analysis of the overall situation.

During the most intense period of the competition, gunshots and explosions rang out everywhere.

Spectators will see a contestant hiding behind a tree and bandage, a contestant driving wildly, and a team after being wiped out, but these clips are completely inconnected.

Due to the lack of a stats screen, the audience does not know who is dead and who is still alive, and what exactly happened to this game.

In a word, PUBG hasn't found a way to present its own competition.

However, the competition is already being held, and it is impossible to cancel it, so now Tencent is working hard to change the competition mode, which is why the competition mode has not been announced so far.

PUBG has a characteristic that traditional esports doesn't have: 80 players competing in the same game.

In the past, in e-sports events, whether it was a 1v1 RTS or a 5v5 MOBA match, there were generally only about 1-3 engagement areas that needed to be monitored and presented to players at the same time.

But in PUBG, there may be more than a dozen areas of simultaneous engagement and confrontation, not to mention neutral observers of the game, even the cameras in the game can't keep up with the needs of scene switching, and the worst of all may be the commentary of the game.

League of Legends, Dota 2, the complexity of 5V5 team battles has a certain requirement for the speed of commentary, it is hard to imagine how detailed and fun, comprehensive and passionate way the PUBG commentary can explain a wave of PUBG "team battles" for the audience watching the game.

Judging from the performance of domestic commentators in the current international competitions, even if the commentary industry has outstanding quality and ability, it is still helpless if the commentary is a good PUBG game.

How to win a chicken contest? Sounds like a non-problematic question.

However, it turns out that for PUBG and other "chicken" games that want to also take the e-sports market, it is really an urgent problem to establish a complete game scoring system.

To put it simply, PUBG is a survival game, and the person who survives to the last minute in the game is the natural winner.

In matches, enemy kills will count as game points and count towards the match result. So the problem is that "survival" and "killing" are sometimes not the same goal.

The surviving contestants may not have killed many people; Players who kill a lot of people may not live long.

The IEM International and ESL Cologne, Germany, both use a double point criterion for survival position and number of kills. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? However, when it comes to the real game, the situation is a little more complicated.

The winner of The International IEM was the veteran French team, a consistent French team that clearly has a deep understanding of the rules of match points.

Throughout the race, they remained in the top five, only succeeding once on the second day. And in the final stages of the game, they began to take advantage of the points advantage and adopt an extremely conservative strategy to win points.

In the final game, they hid their only surviving team member in a relatively hidden bush, dodging temporary clashes and winning a few minutes to finish sixth in that round. As a result, the team, which did not kill a single person in the last two games, won the championship by virtue of the points advantage.

Naturally, there wasn't much criticism for this champion, and it was a victory for their understanding of the game and the format.

They weren't the first to take their "survival" tactics to the extreme, as they won the day's race when some teams had a point advantage and chose to hide behind rocks outside the circle and take drugs to stall for time.

Perhaps when both "survival rank" and "number of kills" are used as the criteria for scoring points in a match, such a point system is destined to become a sensitive topic.

However, it seems that it is possible to imagine the mood of the sleepy spectators when the popular team chooses to collectively "squat" for dozens of minutes in a game to ensure the final victory because of a good point advantage.

So it's understandable that the official use of "kills" as a point is to encourage more crossfires and reward players who are more skilled in shooting, but the percentage of this kill point in the total points will be a topic of debate in PUBG competitions for a long time.

Kills really should be a part of the game, adding an exciting element to the match and making the final stages of the match more intense.

However, the calculation of kill points is actually a complex thing that requires a lot of testing and tournaments.

(End of chapter)