EPTAlso, people have been saying throughout the thread "if we divvy it up between silver/gold/plat" etc..., I've responded to this in the OP, this is IMPOSSIBLE to regulate. There would be far too many smurfs and far too many people switching accounts just to sweep lower tournaments.
Infusing Cash into Starcraft 2 - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Destiny
United States280 Posts
Also, people have been saying throughout the thread "if we divvy it up between silver/gold/plat" etc..., I've responded to this in the OP, this is IMPOSSIBLE to regulate. There would be far too many smurfs and far too many people switching accounts just to sweep lower tournaments. | ||
|
D1sturbance
United States30 Posts
What were doing is discussing what potential rake, and prize distribution is. While that is great let me make a point: Who cares? The idea is there, we shouldn't be arguing over "oh well first place should get X% not Y%" Thats irrelevant at this point. Lets look at this from a "what needs to be done" perspective. 1: lets make sure blizzard allows it // its actually legal. As far as I know Steve is waiting on hearing from them now. 2: This all would have to get built or we would have to use an existing infrastructure (see TL open system, Craft Cup or CSL) 3: Putting everything together. 4: discussion of possible payouts and etc. See what I mean, discussion of payouts, rake and ETC are meaningless right now and efforts should be put towards more important issues. Whos going to program this? Where is it going to be hosted? Does bliz allow it? I love the idea, but we don't need another 5 pages discussing how much the rake should be and etc etc | ||
|
Destiny
United States280 Posts
But yeah, next step would definitely be getting blizzard approval, which I'm waiting on a response for. | ||
|
D1sturbance
United States30 Posts
| ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
| ||
|
dittie
United States51 Posts
On December 16 2010 07:41 South wrote: It actually astounds me that people think this way. Are you trolling? It's a free market. Go ahead and build one for less and force them to bring their fees down. Or hell, just go build a free one and you can support it with all the donations you get. Thanks for the advice Mr. Impossible. I do plan on bringing a monthly fee to poker. And BTW: This is already being implemented into poker rooms in the US because the poker community has made it a point to show how a table running 24 hours per day takes over a million out of the game per year. Meaning, some doofus has to come drop a million in order for the first person to start making money. It's incredibly arrogant to think that something can't be driven down when multiple people are making hundreds of millions of dollars. | ||
|
dittie
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
Bladefury
25 Posts
On December 16 2010 16:48 dittie wrote: Let's discuss how to make this happen, please. I'll try to kick this off. I have actually been working on this concept for the past couple of months. It is an online gaming tournament platform with features that make it fundamentally different from the concept that the OP brought up, but has the same general idea of buy-in tournaments with prize pools. Basically, tournaments are automated and can be accessed any time of the day and week. The system matches up players of similar skill level and chosen level of prize pool. I have thought of the potential problems that may occur and have ironed out the solutions for them. I have a pretty detailed picture of this idea conceptualized on a proposal, which I recently sent to various digital media related venture capital firms and government grants. I have made a presentation once and have another one lined up in January. Getting sufficient funds is one thing, having the right people to make it happen is another. Doing this alone has been extremely hard. I have always wanted to work with others that share the same vision and have the ability to contribute in aspects that I am incapable of. I was really glad that the OP started this thread because it confirmed my belief that such a platform can be successful and that people are motivated enough to realize this idea. I want to team up with people that can contribute ideas, programming, web design, organization, basically anything that can help make this a success. So, if anyone is interested to read my proposal or hear my ideas out, feel free to drop me a PM. To those who are planning work on or have already been working on something similar: Lets come together, pool all our ideas and resources, and turn this dream of ours into reality. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On December 16 2010 06:52 Thorantham wrote: In my experience, this does not work, at least not without significant differences in prize pools. The prize differences between a gold tournament and a diamond tournament are not sufficient to prevent people from playing down if the same pool allocation is used across tournament 'levels'. A top level player maybe plays a diamond tourney on Monday and makes $800, that doesn't mean they won't play down to win $200 in a gold tourney on Tuesday. Top 200 players can be found in tournaments with prizes of $25 every week right now. Also, there's does not appear to be an effective way to police at-level participation. Even in our Gold-Silver-Bronze tournaments we inevitably have some suspicion of someone playing down from time to time even when the prize is just a coaching hour. Not sure why anyone in platinum or diamond would join in that tourney but there really is just no way to be certain. you make a restriction where the diamond player cannot play in gold tournement. The problem is that you must be certain that there are only players of that level, for now i dunno in what way it's possible to resolve this... | ||
|
ashaman771
Canada114 Posts
Have members of this community donate money, and have people play for that money. Start with a simple plan that's quick to the money (donations), and leave out hard to accomplish plans like corporate sponsorship, pay to get in tournaments, new software etc for now. | ||
|
Liquid_Adun
Canada205 Posts
you make a restriction where the diamond player cannot play in gold tournement. The problem is that you must be certain that there are only players of that level, for now i dunno in what way it's possible to resolve this... I would say put an account age and number of minimum games on account restrictions. in addition to this make the prize pool for higher ends more significant than the lower ones. Those are my ideas. Good luck men, Adun  | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
SC2 has way less variance, which removes a lot of hope from lower-tier players. Even a super strong player like, say, Sheth might be reluctant to fork over $100 when he sees a roster of HuK, IdrA, Ret, KiWiKaKi, Naama, etc. on the signup sheet. So maybe he moves down to the $50 tournament. Now other super-strong players see that Sheth, Minigun, Bly, etc. are signed up for the $50 so they sign up for the $20. No matter how many tournaments you host, even a $5 or $10 tournament will ALWAYS be won by a pro or semipro player. For them, the chance at an easy couple hundred bucks far outweighs the chance at fame and glory from a series of unlikely upsets when they're putting their own money on the line. That said, I do want to put forth some ideas for you that might make it easier: -Blind signups. Players shouldn't be able to see who else is signed up for the tournament, or how many other entrants there are. This is the easiest solution for reg-dodging. -Deep payouts. To go with point #2, top players are more likely to enter the expensive tourneys when they have a good chance of at least breaking even. First place won't be as glamorous, but we're going for a long-term sustainable model here. -League system. I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement, but ideally you would have a system where if a player is overperforming in a certain class of tournaments, they are forced to move up and play for higher stakes. Players can always move up freely, but are "locked" from playing in the lowest leagues based on performance. Note that this should be TOTALLY independent of ladder ranking, only based on their performance in the league tournaments themselves. These are just a few of the ideas I have. I've got a lot of experience running cash leagues and tournaments for various games, so if you want to discuss it further, let me know. P.S. All those complaining about legality are missing the point. We're trying to discuss this idea to refine it and present it in a way that Blizzard would accept. | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
On December 14 2010 14:21 Jombozeus wrote: Fundamentally flawed. Poker has luck involved, Starcraft 2 has barely any. If you had a million tournaments, the top 200 players will win a million of them. The skill gap is MUCH bigger and VERY defined in Starcraft 2. Looking at a guy's ranking and seeing him 2600 Diamond while you're 1900 Diamond means your likelihood to lose is probably 90%. This doesn't inspire buy-ins. You have never played poker have you lol | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On December 16 2010 22:40 Snowfield wrote: You have never played poker have you lol Everything he said is completely true and accurate, what are you on about? | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
A harsher way would be to disallow participation if you have won before. But that would only work with a buy-in structure as the sponsorship-model build upon luring in the best-known names for the least amount of prize money. Another approach would be to offer the same piece of computer equipment. No pro needs a third headset... | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On December 16 2010 22:40 Snowfield wrote: You have never played poker have you lol To put it with the (freakin' hilarious) words of day[9]: I have never had my opponent hatch 50 ultralisks out of nowhere and had him say 'Well that's Starcraft!' | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
| ||
|
greeryan
United States34 Posts
 | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On December 16 2010 23:18 Snowfield wrote: It's calculated odds. You might loose a hand because of luck, but if you are good you will in the end win. In a poker tournament, the only reason amateurs enter is because of the element of luck. Yeah, they don't have an edge, but they have a chance. In SC2 that luck is gone, meaning it's almost pointless for even extremely strong players to pay $100 to join a tournament where the very best in the world are playing. Imagine a chess tournament where many 2700+ Grandmasters are playing. If you asked a 2600 or even 2650 if he wanted to stake his own money to play in that tournament, he would emphatically decline. SC2 has more variance than chess, but WAY less than poker. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On December 17 2010 00:22 Cel.erity wrote: In a poker tournament, the only reason amateurs enter is because of the element of luck. Yeah, they don't have an edge, but they have a chance. In SC2 that luck is gone, meaning it's almost pointless for even extremely strong players to pay $100 to join a tournament where the very best in the world are playing. Imagine a chess tournament where many 2700+ Grandmasters are playing. If you asked a 2600 or even 2650 if he wanted to stake his own money to play in that tournament, he would emphatically decline. SC2 has more variance than chess, but WAY less than poker. I think in a BO3 the amateur player definitely has a chance to upset the more skilled player. Look at actionjesus. If I am playing someone I know is way more skilled than me I will definitely cheese/all in them as that is my best chance to win. There is a reason why you can 4gate/3rax/even maybe 6pool your way into diamond. | ||
| ||
