|
On December 15 2010 07:48 dittie wrote:
The thing is, this system can only be enforced by blizzard themselves.
Sit n Go structures work well with poker because there is a higher 'luck' factor involved. Meaning, no matter how good you are at poker, the worst player in the world can still beat you on occasion.
In Starcraft, its 90% skill. If 10 people continuously sign up for a tournament, 2 people will consistently win. Those other 8, would need to become legitimate degenerates for this to work. On paper, this would work out for a little while, until people realized they are pretty much just donating, and they never get the opportunity to win. That's why I said this could only work with the assistance of Blizzard.
Blizzard would have to enforce the hidden MMR to be in place, with a game minimum. People with 100+ games are allowed to enter Sit n Gos and they will automatically matched up against people within +-100 points of them, for example. So, people would more or less be winning a little over 50% of the time.
So, if you're interested in making this idea work, you need to get blizzard going on it.
Thats where "lower money rankings" come into it if out of 10ppl , 5 ppl would get money this wont happen adn u always will have a chance to make money
|
On December 15 2010 07:48 dittie wrote:
In Starcraft, its 90% skill. If 10 people continuously sign up for a tournament, 2 people will consistently win. Those other 8, would need to become legitimate degenerates for this to work. On paper, this would work out for a little while, until people realized they are pretty much just donating, and they never get the opportunity to win.
Actually, this can easily be solved by having tournaments catered to all skill levels, ie having separate tournaments for diamond 0-500 players, 500-1000 players, 1000-1500, etc etc.
|
Yes, I agree. Blizzard would have to randomly match you against people close to your rating.
Having a double or nothing 'sit n go' works. But, still it all has to be done by blizzard themselves.
The majority of the starcraft community is kids without jobs. You'll find that the 3 million will quickly diminish into a couple thousand participants.
|
The tournaments that are $100 prizes or less are essentially not even worth the time of any pro to be playing in, and if there was an option to buy into a much more lucrative tournament the pros would do so. Does anyone seriously realize how LITTLE $100 is? It not even enough money to cover the expenses for playing in a given tourney most of the time. If someone makes 7 dollars an hour at McDonalds that would mean in two days they will make $112 dollars assuming an 8 hour shift on both days. The time it takes to get to the skill level to win in one of these <$100 tourney's is likely in excess of 20-30 hours per tournament, so from a purely career standpoint, the pros NEED buy-in tourneys to start up. Not doing so basically means that one either plays in the GSL or has to have a minimum wage job along with playing SC2 to get by. Long story short - if buy in tourneys start opening up then pros will almost immediately go over to them, anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn't understand money, economics, or professional sports in general.
|
On December 15 2010 08:05 SichuanPanda wrote:
The tournaments that are $100 prizes or less are essentially not even worth the time of any pro to be playing in, and if there was an option to buy into a much more lucrative tournament the pros would do so. Does anyone seriously realize how LITTLE $100 is? It not even enough money to cover the expenses for playing in a given tourney most of the time. If someone makes 7 dollars an hour at McDonalds that would mean in two days they will make $112 dollars assuming an 8 hour shift on both days. The time it takes to get to the skill level to win in one of these <$100 tourney's is likely in excess of 20-30 hours per tournament, so from a purely career standpoint, the pros NEED buy-in tourneys to start up. Not doing so basically means that one either plays in the GSL or has to have a minimum wage job along with playing SC2 to get by. Long story short - if buy in tourneys start opening up then pros will almost immediately go over to them, anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn't understand money, economics, or professional sports in general.
haha you are exactly right. I make over $100 a day and i put in no where near the effort i put in to starcraft lol. You are forgetting one thing though, working sucks and playing sc2 rules. haha ;D just messin with you of course. I agree with your whole post.
|
On December 15 2010 07:48 dittie wrote:
The thing is, this system can only be enforced by blizzard themselves.
Sit n Go structures work well with poker because there is a higher 'luck' factor involved. Meaning, no matter how good you are at poker, the worst player in the world can still beat you on occasion.
In Starcraft, its 90% skill. If 10 people continuously sign up for a tournament, 2 people will consistently win. Those other 8, would need to become legitimate degenerates for this to work. On paper, this would work out for a little while, until people realized they are pretty much just donating, and they never get the opportunity to win. That's why I said this could only work with the assistance of Blizzard.
Blizzard would have to enforce the hidden MMR to be in place, with a game minimum. People with 100+ games are allowed to enter Sit n Gos and they will automatically matched up against people within +-100 points of them, for example. So, people would more or less be winning a little over 50% of the time.
So, if you're interested in making this idea work, you need to get blizzard going on it.
But the idea is that pros will play higher stakes and leave the $5 tournaments to nubs. Same structure as poker. The stakes will sort players out by skill . . . no need for any MMR system. Of course, there will be some people who play in lower stakes than their skill could handle. That happens in poker too. Usually, though, people who work up a bankroll move up to higher stakes.
There are tons of people who play poker even though they lose money. It would be the same way if SC2 sit n goes were structured so that players who lose in the long run at least experience swings. And if break even takes only winning 1 game, and 2 is in the money, that's likely to happen -- there is still plenty of randomness in SC, whether you want to call it luck or not.
|
The problem is that in order to play "real" poker, money has to be at stake. Sure, some people like the free tables but all of the competitive poker players are obviously playing for real money. Something has to be at stake for betting and bluffing to matter.
In Starcraft (and any video game really) you can play it "for real" "for free". Of course you buy the game once when it comes out, so your first game on b.net costs $50, but the marginal cost of every game thereafter is zero. Where's the incentive for the "casual competitive" person (the analogue to micro-stakes poker players) to put in money?
To be successful in the long run, competitive gaming needs to follow the model of professional sports and turn into a true spectator sport. If people will pay money to watch your event, other people will pay money in turn to advertise for it. If enough people watch and enough people advertise, you can make billions. The problem is gaining traction in an entertainment market with literally thousands of options for the consumer, where many of them may not have an interest in "video games". It can be done of course, the main spectator sports in America weren't always as popular (or consolidated into single main leagues), and not every person who watches a sport has a desire to play it.
|
I think the flaw in the concept is that players can play in the low buy-in and high buy-in tournies at the same time. It seems like it'd be really easy if two tournaments were happening over a weekend to just play 1 series for 1 tourney, then play another for another tourney. So if I'm a pro I can technically take my chances in the higher buy-in tournies and at the same time own one of the lower buy-in tournies.
I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc.
Overall though it's a great idea, I don't think we can expect too much from sponsorship money right now.
|
On December 15 2010 08:34 zidaneshead wrote:
I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc.
What if a rich plat kid wants to play for higher stakes or a poor diamond kid can't afford the higher buy ins? I think the solution would be having a range of entry fees for all leagues/levels of skill.
|
On December 15 2010 08:34 zidaneshead wrote:
I think the flaw in the concept is that players can play in the low buy-in and high buy-in tournies at the same time. It seems like it'd be really easy if two tournaments were happening over a weekend to just play 1 series for 1 tourney, then play another for another tourney. So if I'm a pro I can technically take my chances in the higher buy-in tournies and at the same time own one of the lower buy-in tournies.
I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc.
Overall though it's a great idea, I don't think we can expect too much from sponsorship money right now.
Actually this can be regulated by strict rules.
Like once you finish your game you have to within 5 minutes contact the next person you play with. If he is not available to play within next 5 minutes (because he is currently playing a game in the high stakes tournament) he forfeits and you go through.
|
On December 15 2010 08:53 Bladefury wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 08:34 zidaneshead wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc. What if a rich plat kid wants to play for higher stakes or a poor diamond kid can't afford the higher buy ins? I think the solution would be having a range of entry fees for all leagues/levels of skill.
On December 15 2010 09:33 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 08:34 zidaneshead wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the flaw in the concept is that players can play in the low buy-in and high buy-in tournies at the same time. It seems like it'd be really easy if two tournaments were happening over a weekend to just play 1 series for 1 tourney, then play another for another tourney. So if I'm a pro I can technically take my chances in the higher buy-in tournies and at the same time own one of the lower buy-in tournies.
I would think that there should be a restriction to certain tournies based on league level. Maybe up to plats can only play in a $5 buy-in tourney, low-level diamonds can do the $10, higher-level buy-ins are restricted to Master league, etc.
Overall though it's a great idea, I don't think we can expect too much from sponsorship money right now. Actually this can be regulated by strict rules. Like once you finish your game you have to within 5 minutes contact the next person you play with. If he is not available to play within next 5 minutes (because he is currently playing a game in the high stakes tournament) he forfeits and you go through.
Both solid ideas. I like the first one alot actually, multiple tournies with different buy-in amounts for each level of skill.
It'd also be cool to set up something like a cash game system for 1v1s or if you wanna get nuts do it for all game modes including FFAs lol, although that would probably be alot harder to regulate.
|
i havent read the whole thread but no one has mentioned that there are about a billion legal implications that would come into play here and im about 99% sure this would be illigal in the US right now. techinically online poker isnt legal in america. and if it were ever to happen good luck playing for money legally under the age of 18. sorry kiddos..
i have heard of underground(ish) sites that already have these kinds of tourneys for cod.. none being very popular. Most people are probably scammin the crap out of each other on those sites anyways.
|
Sounds like a great idea, if we can get around the legality of it all it will only be a matter of time and commitment. If blizzard is true to the community and try's to promote SC2's competitive play like they said than if they had any brain at all they would allow it and rake a small bit in. overall though love the idea.
|
I really think this could work. It would have to start out small, of course, and have the tournament or at least just the money part handled by an all ready trusted community member. But if it starts to catch on it could be nothing but good for SC2, having weekly buy-in tournaments to give everyone a chance at winning some money. Ideally, it should sort itself out in terms of player skill, having the better players going for the higher prize pools. I know that if i was capable of winning a $10 tourney, but went and won a $5 one to be safe, then saw that someone i know is not as good as i am had won the $10, i wouldn't want that to happen again. If theres enough intrest i think someone should at least try it out.
|
Can blizzard even do anything as long as there isn't some kind of company making a profit?
|
I think a more realistic buy-in would be $1 tourneys where first prize is like, under $50. This would be great for those entry level competitive players and not be worth the time for most of the top players who regularly take small events.
There are a lot of top players out there I don't think you're going to be able to flood the scene enough to stop them competing even for $50 events. One thing I do like is that there's no real need for sponsors when it's buy-in and hence there's no real need to stream it. There's already a lot of congestion of events splitting up viewers and top players where you have like 4 events on at once which I think is detrimental to generating future sponsor interest. If you set up your event and have a target viewership and then a week before you're ready to go another huge event with all the top players is streamed at the same time it will kill your viewers and sponsors won't want to come back. Buy-in events without streams (maybe just stream the finals, or from replays?) would be a good way to keep prized tournaments out there that don't overlap with a lot of other streamed events.
Also something to consider is that if you aim to make tourneys for players who are too low ranked you might get in the ridiculous situation in which the casters and event organisers are going to be putting in more time and effort than the competitors involved put in to practice.
|
On December 15 2010 10:24 woofwoof wrote:
i havent read the whole thread but no one has mentioned that there are about a billion legal implications that would come into play here and im about 99% sure this would be illigal in the US right now. techinically online poker isnt legal in america. and if it were ever to happen good luck playing for money legally under the age of 18. sorry kiddos..
i have heard of underground(ish) sites that already have these kinds of tourneys for cod.. none being very popular. Most people are probably scammin the crap out of each other on those sites anyways.
There is nothing illegal about video game competitions. There are plenty of LAN and online tournaments that involve other games with entry fees and prize pools. Sc2 does have many similarities to poker but they are fundamentally different. Poker has elements of randomness that the players involved cannot control, Sc2 has none of that. I have yet to hear of a convincing argument that the implementation of entry fees and prize pools for gaming competitions makes them a "gambling thing".
I do know of some of the sites that you mentioned. None of them are refined or reliable enough to be mainstream imo.
|
i think it would be fucking awesome.
they should have kind of "sit 'n go" tourneys with less people as well, or allow people to have wager matches where they put money on a BO3, etc.
you could seriously monetise the whole thing and it would be awesome.
Blizz could rake every "pot", and make a shitload of money from this. Get on it Blizz!
|
On December 15 2010 10:33 zidaneshead wrote:
Can blizzard even do anything as long as there isn't some kind of company making a profit?
Blizzard has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It will draw a ton of attention to the game, help many casual gamers make the step up to the competitive scene, leading to bigger tournaments and more publicity. I feel that this has the potential to really make the game huge, just like how online poker sites made poker explode in popularity all over the world.
|
I 100% support this thread and the ideas it presents. This must happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
