|
On December 14 2010 16:45 Hot_Bid wrote:
You're missing the point of why people play SC2. Sure, a small minority play with money as a motivator, but the vast majority (99%) play for fun. Most of the big names play these buy in tournaments that probably net them $10/hr (and that's if they win) because they'd be playing anyway, not because they feel it's +EV or something.
Thus, a buy-in scene is just not sustainable when the bulk of the people buying in can just play the dozens of other tournaments without buyins. The difference in experience of playing in a $10 buy in tourney vs a free-to-enter tournament is nothing to the average player. What does a buy in get you? In poker the experience of playing in a big tournament with high stakes is pretty fun. You even have a small chance to go really far if you're lucky. In SC2 for an average player paying $10 to play maybe 1, 2 Bo3s with 0% chance to cash? That just won't be worth it. Entry fees are fine when you're actually paying for an experience that nobody else can provide (MLG, etc) but for a regular online tournament, it's just not worth it.
You're right that most people play SC2 just to have fun. But that's exactly the point -- monetizing SC2 with a gambling system would go a long way toward making it more of an esport and less of a "fun hobby." And it would get a lot more people playing seriously. How many people would take poker seriously if no money were involved? And how many more people would take SC2 seriously if money were involved?
+ Show Spoiler +High five for UM law and posting in this thread instead of studying for torts!
On December 14 2010 17:00 vOdToasT wrote:
Buy in tournaments would be pretty awesome if the top 50% or top 25% got money, imo.
Let's say you have a 10$ 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)
I agree with this. If only top 3 got paid, HotBid is right, almost everyone would have no chance of winning. But if top half get paid, that changes everything. I'm pretty bad, but I'd pay to enter something like this:
$10 entry fee, 64 players
17-32 get their $10 back
16-9 get $15
8-5 get $25
3+4 get $40
2 gets $60
1 gets $120.
If you get past the first round, it's a break even proposition.
One might ask why someone would pay $10 for the chance to win $120 at most in a 64 man tournament. The margins are much higher in poker tournaments. But as people have already pointed out, poker involves more luck than SC2. So it's easier to predict how well one will do in an SC 2 tournament than in a poker tournament. And since there's less risk, the reward can be correspondingly smaller. + Show Spoiler +This is a big assumption, I realize. There's still plenty of luck in tournaments based on who enters and how the brackets turn out. But SC2 def involves less risk than poker.
Another key to making this work would be to set up something like Poker Stars. One reason I don't bother with free sc2 tournaments is that it's a hassle to enter, schedule, etc. If I could log on, click to pay $10, and be playing the tournament within 15 mins, like a sitngo style online poker tournament, I'd be much more likely to play. If it comes down to picking between a weekly $10 tournament and a weekly free tournament, however, HotBid is again right, a gambling system would probably fail.
|
On December 14 2010 17:00 vOdToasT wrote:
Buy in tournaments would be pretty awesome if the top 50% or top 25% got money, imo.
Let's say you have a 10$ 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)
This is a very good idea.
You could also create tourneys where entry fees could be very small like 0.25 dollars, 0.50 dollars, 1 dollar and so on.
This idea doesn't have to be only for the hardcore players. 
|
The "luck" in Poker is that you have zero control in the hand you get.
If you are dealt 2 7's and your opponent is dealt 2 queens and then the shown cards have a queen and a seven as the only significant cards. You will lose, 100% of the time.
You can beat any strategy in Starcraft2 by catching it early and responding accordingly. Proxy gates or Canon rushes can be beaten with good control, the same cannot be said about Poker.
Even so, hes not really comparing the two games only the systems that are used to make money. If there are hundreds of tournies running at any point then by statistical margins you'll win one. So. like I said in my edit, someone who is serious about SC and wants to make money off it win understand that you have to put some effort into it. So, how much is 20$ couching and a 10$ entry fee to a possible 200 or 300 return? If anything, SC is a better suited for this kind of system because the people who invest more time will get more out of it. SC is not that hard to get semi decent at.
A bronze player will not make that much money, but if they invest more time and effort into the game and say get into plat or Diamond level then they will have a better chance of winning a tourny.
If people say this is a bad Idea then why do people pay to get couching lessons!? Currently there is NO incentive for me to get better because all the pros are winning all of the tournies. So, by reason alone anyone who doesn't invest 8-12 hours a day is a fool and shouldn't care about SC. But with this system it would increase interest in the game and it would reward those who put a decent amount of time into it.
|
Exactly as I posted and Ultravires posted (albeit clearly than me i think) If in a 64 man tournament winning the first round or two made you break even and then every round after that guaranteed profit people would enter. You may not win, but people would think, I just need to win 2-3 games and I've doubled my money or so.. then that'd be tempting to enter. It gives incentive, your not going to meet pro players in every round at these tournaments so your chances of progressing are as equal as anyones, so it would be tempting to enter.
99% of poker players don't make a living out of it. But i'd bet a good portion of them, still make some money out of it.. and this is what keeps other players playing too. It's not going to make you rich, but if you get something back for something you'd be doing anyway, your more motivated to improve and keep doing it.
|
On December 15 2010 01:57 UltraVires wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 16:45 Hot_Bid wrote:
You're missing the point of why people play SC2. Sure, a small minority play with money as a motivator, but the vast majority (99%) play for fun. Most of the big names play these buy in tournaments that probably net them $10/hr (and that's if they win) because they'd be playing anyway, not because they feel it's +EV or something.
Thus, a buy-in scene is just not sustainable when the bulk of the people buying in can just play the dozens of other tournaments without buyins. The difference in experience of playing in a $10 buy in tourney vs a free-to-enter tournament is nothing to the average player. What does a buy in get you? In poker the experience of playing in a big tournament with high stakes is pretty fun. You even have a small chance to go really far if you're lucky. In SC2 for an average player paying $10 to play maybe 1, 2 Bo3s with 0% chance to cash? That just won't be worth it. Entry fees are fine when you're actually paying for an experience that nobody else can provide (MLG, etc) but for a regular online tournament, it's just not worth it. You're right that most people play SC2 just to have fun. But that's exactly the point -- monetizing SC2 with a gambling system would go a long way toward making it more of an esport and less of a "fun hobby." And it would get a lot more people playing seriously. How many people would take poker seriously if no money were involved? And how many more people would take SC2 seriously if money were involved? + Show Spoiler +High five for UM law and posting in this thread instead of studying for torts! Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 17:00 vOdToasT wrote:
Buy in tournaments would be pretty awesome if the top 50% or top 25% got money, imo.
Let's say you have a 10$ 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) I agree with this. If only top 3 got paid, HotBid is right, almost everyone would have no chance of winning. But if top half get paid, that changes everything. I'm pretty bad, but I'd pay to enter something like this: $10 entry fee, 64 players17-32 get their $10 back 16-9 get $15 8-5 get $25 3+4 get $40 2 gets $60 1 gets $120. If you get past the first round, it's a break even proposition. One might ask why someone would pay $10 for the chance to win $120 at most in a 64 man tournament. The margins are much higher in poker tournaments. But as people have already pointed out, poker involves more luck than SC2. So it's easier to predict how well one will do in an SC 2 tournament than in a poker tournament. And since there's less risk, the reward can be correspondingly smaller. + Show Spoiler +This is a big assumption, I realize. There's still plenty of luck in tournaments based on who enters and how the brackets turn out. But SC2 def involves less risk than poker. Another key to making this work would be to set up something like Poker Stars. One reason I don't bother with free sc2 tournaments is that it's a hassle to enter, schedule, etc. If I could log on, click to pay $10, and be playing the tournament within 15 mins, like a sitngo style online poker tournament, I'd be much more likely to play. If it comes down to picking between a weekly $10 tournament and a weekly free tournament, however, HotBid is again right, a gambling system would probably fail.
This would be such a great system, and it could be applied with any entrance fee. There could be a $1 fee for people who don't want to risk as much - though from previous posts it seems that getting a payout for that little amount might be a problem. But if one were to play enough, it shouldn't be a problem to get a payout after a few games.
|
On December 15 2010 02:16 gotlucky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 01:57 UltraVires wrote:On December 14 2010 16:45 Hot_Bid wrote:
You're missing the point of why people play SC2. Sure, a small minority play with money as a motivator, but the vast majority (99%) play for fun. Most of the big names play these buy in tournaments that probably net them $10/hr (and that's if they win) because they'd be playing anyway, not because they feel it's +EV or something.
Thus, a buy-in scene is just not sustainable when the bulk of the people buying in can just play the dozens of other tournaments without buyins. The difference in experience of playing in a $10 buy in tourney vs a free-to-enter tournament is nothing to the average player. What does a buy in get you? In poker the experience of playing in a big tournament with high stakes is pretty fun. You even have a small chance to go really far if you're lucky. In SC2 for an average player paying $10 to play maybe 1, 2 Bo3s with 0% chance to cash? That just won't be worth it. Entry fees are fine when you're actually paying for an experience that nobody else can provide (MLG, etc) but for a regular online tournament, it's just not worth it. You're right that most people play SC2 just to have fun. But that's exactly the point -- monetizing SC2 with a gambling system would go a long way toward making it more of an esport and less of a "fun hobby." And it would get a lot more people playing seriously. How many people would take poker seriously if no money were involved? And how many more people would take SC2 seriously if money were involved? + Show Spoiler +High five for UM law and posting in this thread instead of studying for torts! On December 14 2010 17:00 vOdToasT wrote:
Buy in tournaments would be pretty awesome if the top 50% or top 25% got money, imo.
Let's say you have a 10$ 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) I agree with this. If only top 3 got paid, HotBid is right, almost everyone would have no chance of winning. But if top half get paid, that changes everything. I'm pretty bad, but I'd pay to enter something like this: $10 entry fee, 64 players17-32 get their $10 back 16-9 get $15 8-5 get $25 3+4 get $40 2 gets $60 1 gets $120. If you get past the first round, it's a break even proposition. One might ask why someone would pay $10 for the chance to win $120 at most in a 64 man tournament. The margins are much higher in poker tournaments. But as people have already pointed out, poker involves more luck than SC2. So it's easier to predict how well one will do in an SC 2 tournament than in a poker tournament. And since there's less risk, the reward can be correspondingly smaller. + Show Spoiler +This is a big assumption, I realize. There's still plenty of luck in tournaments based on who enters and how the brackets turn out. But SC2 def involves less risk than poker. Another key to making this work would be to set up something like Poker Stars. One reason I don't bother with free sc2 tournaments is that it's a hassle to enter, schedule, etc. If I could log on, click to pay $10, and be playing the tournament within 15 mins, like a sitngo style online poker tournament, I'd be much more likely to play. If it comes down to picking between a weekly $10 tournament and a weekly free tournament, however, HotBid is again right, a gambling system would probably fail. This would be such a great system, and it could be applied with any entrance fee. There could be a $1 fee for people who don't want to risk as much - though from previous posts it seems that getting a payout for that little amount might be a problem. But if one were to play enough, it shouldn't be a problem to get a payout after a few games.
Exactly. Just divide the numbers by 10 to get the results for a $1 entry fee.
I just want to add one more thought: I think the main reason that poker became so popular out of complete obscurity in the early 00s was that the internet brought competitive poker to everyone. On sites like poker stars, anyone can gamble like a pro, although with smaller chips, which in turn generated a market to watch the big dogs play for crazy amounts. The pro-spectating scene of course fed right back into the online-amateur scene, and they mutually supported each other till both industries became huge. I'm not saying that organized amateur SC2 gambling will necessarily have the same effect, but it would be a decent bet
|
I don't think that players should pay for lower prize pools. However, it's also worth noting that it is reasonable (in my opinion) to ask for a buy-in if the event is not sponsored.
Basically, let's say Budweiser holds a SC2 tournament, $5000 grand prize. I don't think the players should pay, as the costs have more than likely been written off as a business expense.
On the other hand, if I were to throw together a tournament... A college student doesn't exactly have cash. Each player pitches $5, let's say 50 people show... that's $250 prize pool. This is fine, in my opinion, unless I'd take a cut of the prize to gain a profit... then it's not cool.
|
I think one of the biggest arguments is "why would I enter a tournament I would never win?" well the idea is that you would be able to win...
Its not like they would organize 1 $5 entry tournament, where the first 64 get to play... no you organize like 20 $5 tournaments. The really good players will be spread out giving everyone a better chance of winning.
Say in tournmament 1 kiwikaki enters, but so does Huk, inControl, and Machine. Ok, now its a toss up as to what top player gets the prize.
Say in tournament 2 (people who entered after the original 64) happens to only have slush and LzGamer, well in a round of 64 these two players will probably win, but still they could get knocked out.
Say in tournament 3 (after 128 entrants) the only good player to enter is Liquid'Tyler. Now in a multi-round tournmanet anything could happen, and Tyler could get killed in any round of the tourney and then the prize is up for grabs.
Now, say in tournament 4 its just a bunch of random ~2500 +/- 500 point diamonds, no one famous, now who wins?
Say in tournament 5, Idra enters late, just for fun, well now this tournament is probably won by idra, but there is no progamer to take 2nd place.
Say in tournamnet 6 again just a bunch of random diamonds
etc... etc... etc...
While some tables in poke you get screwed at "oh hey look, Its 3 pros at my table, guess I'm not advancing"
other times you get lucky and its just a bunch of randoms. This is the idea here.
- - - - - -
Then to build off of that, you have like 10 $5 tournaments, 5 $10 tournaments, 2 $20 tournaments, and 1 $50 tournament running at the same time.
Sure, some progamers will enter the $5 tournaments, but most will hit up the higher ones just because the prize pool is twice as large without that much more competition. I mean, in the $5 tournament your probably winning ~$150 for first place. Decent money, but the $10 and your looking at something closer to $350, $20 and your sitting pretty around $800...
The $50 tournament will end up with a prize pool of ~$1,500 - $2,000 for that kind of money, people like idra, huk, jinro, etc... will sign up simply because they have a good shot of getting the $2,000 where a random diamond has no chance.
Do you think people who are constantly winning tournaments say Fenix will go "man I've won a TONNE of tournaments, and beaten out most of the best players in SC2... lets play some $5 tournaments and kill some noobs!" or will he go "well... I'm one of the best players in the world, lets make some bank, i'll enter one of the $20 tournaments, lots of prize money and the competition will be lower than the $50 tournament. I beat most of these guys in tournaments already so with less of them participating here this will be cake."
(Please note, just picked random good player's names in this, in no way have I actually ranked these players abilities or believe that they are only good enough to enter a certain tournament bracket. I just picked names that I know and enjoy watching.)
|
I believe that this would drastically change SC2 competitive play for the better. I believe that it would make the skill level of every player in general higher.
You could even do tournaments for players in silver, lets say, and they wouldn't even have to be amazing to win.
The quality for spectators would rise because people would have more drive to win.
|
Your idea is against blizzards current ULA. Not sure if that has been covered, im not about to read 9 pages of posts.
Believe me tournament organizers have thought of this. And for blizzard to allow your tournament to take place you cant charge a buy in.
Also please note StarCraft 2 has only been out for 4 months. Its in its infancy and is only going to grow. I can speak on behalf of l2sc.net, the site i run. Our first tournament was a 400$ prize pool, Our second tournament was a 3000$ prize pool, our third tournament will be even larger.
Give it some time and you will see more money put forth into bigger prize pools
|
hmm one of the main problems here seems to be that we are still trying to generate revenue directly from the players. I wonder what the advertisement revenues for sc2 are like, as compared to something like baseball etc...
|
whoaaaa wait slow down. you mean video game tourneys dont have as much money in them as old and popular as shit poker tourneys in a country where competitive gaming isnt as popular? you just fucking blew my mind open mother fucker. maybe e sports as a whole needs to get bigger before that fucking matters. it needs big boys and THAT TAKES TIME ASSHOLE
User was temp banned for this post.
|
One of the only reasons poker is so big is that it's a huge luckfest and so bad players have no idea how bad they really are.
With StarCraft and almost anything else, just by playing 2-3 games with someone, you can clearly see who's the better player. The worse player will then not want to risk any money.
On December 15 2010 02:36 Nutro wrote:
whoaaaa wait slow down. you mean video game tourneys dont have as much money in them as old and popular as shit poker tourneys in a country where competitive gaming isnt as popular? you just fucking blew my mind open mother fucker. maybe e sports as a whole needs to get bigger before that fucking matters. it needs big boys and THAT TAKES TIME ASSHOLE
You're so getting banned, it was a pleasure reporting you.
|
well Instead of arguing about it why dont u inform blizz and start up an site
then we will so how it goes
|
I really like the idea of 50% of the players getting their money back. THOUSANDS more players would be interested in tourneys where they know they wont win the whole tournement but if they can win one round break even and win two rounds and profit. Im only mid-high platinum but ive gotten lucky and won against mid diamond players.
People are more prone to gamble with their money than throw it away. People get lucky games just like people get lucky hands in poker. (Just expect ALOT of cheesing.)
Also, the concept of buy-in tourneys is definitely a possibility, you just need consent from blizzard. MLG events have a 60 dollar buy in and the 64-128 passes sellout in minutes. If a 60 dollar buy-in sell out that quickly you should have no problem finding thousands to do multiple 10 dollar buy ins.
|
I wish things like this would be this easy, but as with anything, if the price is more than free, the number of people willing to participate decreases about 98%.
By the way, some of the prizes at the end of the OWC were $200+, but thanks for including me in your original post ^^
|
So, let me understand this clearly. You're proposing a new reason for creation of new people who cheese their way to tournament finals or turtle up in an island base, as if the number of people playing lame games is not enough. Joining a tournament with free signups is good. It allows casual gamers to join tournaments and play like they want to. But when people invest in something, they will do anything to win. Cheesing, turtling up in island bases, stupid allins for the sake of winning odd games will happen just more and it's just the opposite of what people want.
In poker, people bluff other people, and it's always funny and enjoyable to see people getting bluffed by jack high or anything like that. But, in Starcraft, people do all sorts of lame play like Thor Drops, stupid cheeses, turtling up at island bases. I don't know about everybody, but I hate people doing this. Yes, pulling off a good cheese is good too, and people laugh at it as well. But, if cheese happens in every single game of a particular matchup (cough, TvZ, cough), it's not. I don't know about you, but neither NewDawn, nor IdrA (nor ret nor NesTea) deserved to get eliminated by the stupidest plays from lesser skilled players (yes, I really think that mvp is not nearly as good as IdrA and most of the TvZ strats are ridiculously stupid. Even if mvp is really better than IdrA, i don't think anyone would disagree with the skill comparison between NewDawn and bitbybit or NesTea and rain).
I just want to see what people think about this:
Poll: Do you really want more lame play after GSL Season 3Yes (10) 91% No (1) 9% 11 total votes Your vote: Do you really want more lame play after GSL Season 3 (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
For the second reason why i think this would be a bad idea: Because casual gaming will be ruined so hard. I don't think that really 1024 out of 1024 people who join go4sc2 cup really do it because of money. Actually I would hardly believe that even 24 out of 1024 people join that for money (particular example is particular, again). And, yes. I'm one in a thousand. You can easily say that "Yeah but we can make tournaments skill level restricted.". I neither know that you already know this, nor give a fuck: Some people are so underrated or purposefully lose in the ladder for the sake of staying in lower leagues. And those people will chobostomp the people who is really silver level and wants to join a tourney and have fun with people of the same skill as him. Your idea is the e-sports equivalent of making basketball courts in the streets pay to play.
Poll: Would you pay to play at a basketball court?Yes (12) 86% No (2) 14% 14 total votes Your vote: Would you pay to play at a basketball court? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
On December 15 2010 03:18 Metalwing wrote:So, let me understand this clearly. You're proposing a new reason for creation of new people who cheese their way to tournament finals or turtle up in an island base, as if the number of people playing lame games is not enough. Joining a tournament with free signups is good. It allows casual gamers to join tournaments and play like they want to. But when people invest in something, they will do anything to win. Cheesing, turtling up in island bases, stupid allins for the sake of winning odd games will happen just more and it's just the opposite of what people want. In poker, people bluff other people, and it's always funny and enjoyable to see people getting bluffed by jack high or anything like that. But, in Starcraft, people do all sorts of lame play like Thor Drops, stupid cheeses, turtling up at island bases. I don't know about everybody, but I hate people doing this. Yes, pulling off a good cheese is good too, and people laugh at it as well. But, if cheese happens in every single game of a particular matchup (cough, TvZ, cough), it's not. I don't know about you, but neither NewDawn, nor IdrA (nor ret nor NesTea) deserved to get eliminated by the stupidest plays from lesser skilled players (yes, I really think that mvp is not nearly as good as IdrA and most of the TvZ strats are ridiculously stupid. Even if mvp is really better than IdrA, i don't think anyone would disagree with the skill comparison between NewDawn and bitbybit or NesTea and rain). I just want to see what people think about this: Poll: Do you really want more lame play after GSL Season 3Yes (10) 91% No (1) 9% 11 total votes Your vote: Do you really want more lame play after GSL Season 3 (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
For the second reason why i think this would be a bad idea: Because casual gaming will be ruined so hard. I don't think that really 1024 out of 1024 people who join go4sc2 cup really do it because of money. Actually I would hardly believe that even 24 out of 1024 people join that for money (particular example is particular, again). And, yes. I'm one in a thousand. You can easily say that "Yeah but we can make tournaments skill level restricted.". I neither know that you already know this, nor give a fuck: Some people are so underrated or purposefully lose in the ladder for the sake of staying in lower leagues. And those people will chobostomp the people who is really silver level and wants to join a tourney and have fun with people of the same skill as him. Your idea is the e-sports equivalent of making basketball courts in the streets pay to play. Poll: Would you pay to play at a basketball court?Yes (12) 86% No (2) 14% 14 total votes Your vote: Would you pay to play at a basketball court? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
So much anger. i dont how this is the same as paying to play basketball. Betting on basketball games is something that happens (same thing as this will do). And its stupid to say that players shouldnt use particular strats like cheesing. Cheesing helps the game develop and it is, should, and always will be a part of the game!
|
@metal I have actually bet on basketball games all the time :D
I understand where you're coming from, but its a whole new experience playing with risk as opposed to playing with nothing on the line. You are correct when you said there will be mass cheesing, but even in GSL there is mass cheesing with money on the line.
|
On December 15 2010 03:18 Metalwing wrote:
TL:DR, thanks, but it's not for me.
I don't really understand this. You make it sound like cheesing will start winning tournaments left and right. If anything, players with a lower skill level that rely on cheesing would see that it takes quite a bit more strategy to win a tournament. I think that this would benefit the Starcraft strategy scene. If you think that the GSL season 3 perpetuated the use of cheesing, I believe you're wrong. MC did quick aggression against Jinro because he knows that Jinro had been focusing on long term macro strategies and was susceptible to early game aggression. It was a strategy, nothing more.
And the tournament scene certainly hasn't hurt the casual poker playing field. If anything, it's helped it to reach new heights. The tournament and casual scene helped to feed each other's popularity. Right now, the tournament scene is dominated by pros. But, as Destiny is pointing out, if the casual player felt like they could step in a make a few bucks off of tournaments, it would help to greatly expand the popularity of the game as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
