|
no money in starcraft, everyone is solid.
unfortunately most people can play starcraft for free unlike poker. why would they risk $ to satisfy their competitive ego when they can do it gaining points on the ladder? anyone looking for $ in starcraft will either devote all their time into it to become a top player or realize they don't have what it takes and pursue more profitable ventures. honestly, i love esports but i wouldnt buy in a starcraft tournament with >20 stranger players, and even then there would be issues with cheating, etc. starcraft will remain a very fun and free game 
|
why we can organized starcraft 2 like the poker, so you have level of buy-in
bronze level 2cent(you put 2cent to play in the league, same for the other)
silver level 5cent
gold level 10cent
platinum 20cent
diamond 50cent
Master 1$
Grand Master 10$
and therefore you need a bankroll just like poker...would be really cool
|
i believe the only players interested in making money off starcraft are people that give it lots of time and effort and there are very few of them. i am a 2700 terran who plays sparingly and wouldn't pay to play in an online tournament especially with any top NA players in it because i would have no chance. Even if I was playing 2000 level players who i feel i would beat in a series 95 percent of the time why would they keep playing in a buy in tournament when they barely play to begin with and will get smashed everytime by any half decent player.
|
interesting post. maybe someday we will see more $$ pouring into a variety of tournaments (maybe i won't have to sponsor my top 200 koth out of pocket!).
|
Lol.
It's like people pointed out. The difference between SC2 and Poker.. is that in Poker, some noob can win because of luck.
Less likely to happen in SC2. It's what makes Poker so popular.. because once in a while, the noob beats the pro.
Luck gives noobs the chance, the opportunity... and a dream.
Noobs in SC2 from bronze league know there is -1000% chance of winning against HuK or Idra.
|
How about this approach, charge a small fee for people to view the tournaments. For these small tournaments I'd pay $0.25 - 2.00 to watch the matches with someone casting and maybe the ability to download a replay pack. Its the spectators that generate the revenue for most sports after all.
|
I'm totally with the idea of buy-in tournaments.
People here are forgetting that poker was just a example. Chess (like JeanLuc said) could be a good example too.
For those thinking about the "noobs that won't participate because of the winning chances"
First of all, free of charge will still be out there.
And we can do a system similar to Code S from GSL. Top players will only participate on $25~50 tournaments, noobs $5~10, average $10~25 and so on. If they don't want to pay these higher fees...again, there are the free of charge tounaments.
The point is, top players will compete only against top players, but the prize will be much higher. Noobs will compete against noobs, but the prize will be lower.
Just an idea.
Edit:
Or we can just separate by Battle.net ranking.
Like, "Diamond-only $10 tournament" or "The $50 Bronze tournament" . . .
|
Actually I would.pay...if someone set up a site that managed the money and set up the tournaments.I feel as though SC wuld get a huge popularity boost and take another step towards becoming a legitimate sport is the world.
|
For sure I would do it. However we do not know if the player base is big enough to actually make as many as 5 dollar, 10 dollar, 50 dollar and 100 dolar tourneys. You might just end up with everyone playing the 10 dollar tourney.
|
for people saying that no one would enter a tournament (payed) knowing they have to play players 1000 times better than them: That is the problem the OP is trying to solve... just saying.
Of course a bronze player wouldn't pay $10 to play in a top 200 tournament. but would a bronze player pay $10 to play 31 other bronze players and potentially win $250? This is essentially what poker does. If your a noob you enter a tournament with a $1 buy in and a $25 pay out, you probably are pretty similarly experienced as your competition in that said tournament. I doubt there are too many pro's surfing $1 buy in tournaments.
The problem (clearly stated by op) is that in sc2 you have a 32 person tournament with a pay out of $50 and some of the top players in the world are entering it. How to solve this is the difficult part.
|
Imo the main problem is the difference between poker and starcraft.
Everyone has a shot at winning poker, and half the people at the table think they're the best person at the table, it's just the way the game works and it keeps people wanting to spend money thinking they're the best and them thinking its only a matter of time before the luck evens out and they become winners.
With starcraft, it's obvious to 99% of people straight away if they are the best or not the best in a tournament level after playing a few. With no incentive for those that are obviously not the best (they have no real chance to 'luck through', and unlike poker its obvious that they are not just getting 'unlucky'), they will simply stop playing since there's a free ladder for them to play anytime and its not going to cost them there money to lose there instead, this will go all the through until you're stuck with exactly what you are now, the top of the top players battling it out for little money.
|
I like this idea, but I think it would be hard for the players to gauge whether it is worth the financial input, sure if you have a 128 player tournament with $5 buy in ($640 prize pool), it is not much to spend in order to participate in what should be a good challenging tournament with possible decent reward ($200 ftw let's say) while not much of a financial loss to the participants if they don't win anything (perhaps first round losers should go into another pool with a winner's prize so they don't just have one game and that's it), but when you scale this up to $25 buy in, the reward is much greater but the buy in is no longer a trivial amount to most people and you would probably just be left with the same few players who know they can win or do well in the tournament and many other players deterred from entering at the price. Also, would there be limitations put on who can join what tournament? Let's say one of these great players decides "I have nothing to do today, let's stomp all of the $5 tournament scrubs, it should be an easy $200", this kind of situation could straight up kill that $5 tournament and deter many people from playing in it in the future.
What I would suggest for these buy in tournaments is perhaps preliminary rounds or brackets that are free of charge to determine to the players whether it is worth it for them to spend their money to begin with. So you would already play with a small amount of the players that are applying for the tournament, giving you an idea of the skill level involved and whether the buy in is worth it. Or perhaps pay a small fraction of the buy in money (like a blind) in order to play in these brackets and then pay the full amount if you intend to continue with the tournament after the preliminaries. For example, let's say the buy in is $5 but to play in the preliminary round it is only $1.50 and let's also say that each prelim bracket has 8 players in it vying for 4 spots (8x$1.50=$12, over 2 players worth of buy in already, generating money for the pool to begin with), each player would play 7 games, which would be well worth it for the price and would also generate revenue for the tournament at little cost to each of the players, as well as giving each player an idea of the standard of play to expect from the tournament. The top two finishers from each of the brackets would be matched up with the 3rd and 4th from other brackets (meaning that it is still important to win in these prelim rounds) and the 5th-8th would miss out UNLESS any of the top 4 in their bracket decided they did not want to participate, in which case it would give the 5th-8th person a chance to buy in. This would of course mean that everyone gets bumped up (for example, the player who qualified first in his bracket decides not to play because HE IS INSANE, I MEAN WTF MAN, 2nd would become first and 3rd would become second meaning they could be matched against possibly easier opponents than if the 1st qualifier was still in the tourny giving them more reason to buy in).
So we would have 4 people from each bracket in the tournament, but the money pool would be slightly increased with little cost to the players not in the tournament, allowing for greater than 100% buyin per player ($12 for prelims + 4x3.50=$14)=$26 which divided by 4 is greater than the $5 buyin, giving everyone still in the tournament the feel that they are getting more back for what they have spent from the start and also allowing the players to have some idea of how they may perform in the tournament. In the event that so many players opt out from the full buy in that there are only 3 people from each bracket of 8 wishing to participate in the tournament, the highest qualifier of each group will obtain a bye for the first round. In regards to the issue of there being less players in the tournament and therefore less money in the tournament, this is not the case as insurance has already been provided for the missing players funds with the small blind buy ins of the players eliminated in the 8 player brackets (only 3x3.50=10.50 but with 8x1.50=12, it is still over the $5 each from 4 players required in order to reach the announced prizepool), so it provides small financial risk to the organiser (no need to top up the prize amounts yourself) as the prizepool should still be sufficient or even greater than the announced prizepool based on 64x$5 initial amounts.
Whoa I wrote an essay, sorry about that, but I think a system like this would certainly be viable for the lower end buy-in tournaments, whether it would scale up to the larger buy-in tournaments is another question (you could possibly bump up the bracket blind to increase the prize money in those cases instead of charging everyone who wants to participate a massive amount)
|
The idea is great.
Is it possible? well, if somebody ask you 10 years ago that "can we organize a sc tournament and broadcast the on TV??" , we would laugh at him.
So I think yes, it is possible.
|
The success lies moreso in local tourneys. LAN centers should be holding local SC2 tourneys that people play in.
|
On December 14 2010 18:59 Magulina wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:00 vOdToasT wrote:
Buy in tournaments would be pretty awesome if the top 50% or top 25% got money, imo.
Let's say you have a 10$ payin with 64 people. That gives 640 dollars. You could easily pay the top 50% (the higher you placed, the more you would get, naturally) That is a very good idea, it would definately motivate people to play again if they won a small sum every now and then
this is actually probably the most insightful post i've read so far, thanks for quoting it. i think this idea could go a LONG way to overcoming the 'oh i'll never beat a good player, what's the point?' mindset if you don't actually have to beat most of the people in the tournament to win money. when you think about it, tournaments have a massively disproportionate payout. i think it would be an awesome format for a 30+ man tournament to have a buyin of $10 with the guarantee that if you got half way through it, you get your money back with some tournament experience, and every game after you make more money. that's actually how GSL is run too, minus the need for buy-in. people basically make money every time they win, and the more wins, the more money.
over time people would come to accept the idea of buy-ins as a stable way to run tournaments since half the people who enter are still 'winners', if only blizzard would allow it.
|
Despite comparing Poker to Starcraft is pretty idiotic, your idea has a flaw.
Pro's won't have to decide between the small 10$ and big 75$ torunament, they will play both at once, like they are already doing.
|
OP.
you are intelligent and i like your stream.
that is all.
|
The thing with poker is you don't have to win to make money back. You can make money at poker playing a few games now and then, Then ofc there's the luck involved, people say it's a game of skill but anyone has the chance to get 4 aces on the flop and that could be the difference between going home poor or leaving with a fat stack of cash. Starcraft 2 doesn't offer this same... "small chance" issue.
The community isn't big enough and varied enough to run this many tournaments without them being scoured by stronger players for easy money. Poker is easy to understand, simple to follow, and the odd's are cheap.
An alternative idea could be.... like poker you pay the blinds.. how about in a 64 man tournament, every round you pay your blind to play your tournament game. If you win you get the previous rounds blind back and the pot is built up from the losing players blinds.
round 1.. 64 players $64
round 2 32 players $32
round 3 16 players $16
round 4 8 players $8
round 5 4 players $4
round 6 2 players $2
$126
top 16 make payments back so $2x8 16
top 8 make double there payments so $6x4 32
top 4 make triple $12x 2 24
runner up $20
winner $32
quick example.. prob a better system just thought of it off the top of my head. losing round of 64 and 32 returns nothing, round of 16 returns money at a small loss, round of 8 and up you make increasing profit.
|
This is as untapped of a resource as there is in all of gaming. The first company that creates these buy-in tournaments the way poker is done will make millions down the road.
|
sorry but the reason you give doesnt make any sense...
you say the best players are entering the lower price tournaments.. so you want to give other guys more oppurtunities i dont see why a bid-in tournament woul be best idea... the pros would come play them anyway and i dont think any of the lower tier players would pay to get in cause the best would also be in.. so i dont see the point of it..
the pay to get in tournaments are usually just for the best to get in
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
