|
On June 28 2008 21:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:
This isn't gambling, starcraft cannot possibly be defined as anything but a game of skill. So legally I don't see why this would be a problem.
The UIGEA is the most retarded piece of legislation ever tho. Bans poker but horse betting is fine. So logical.
Hopefully it will be repealed soon because it's just retarded -.-
Anyway, they allow Fantasy Sports too, which, as I understand, works very similarily to what I described. IE players buyin, then the winner/s take the majority of the money. Oh I know it is and I don't see it lasting very long either, the trouble is how are you going to convince an 80 year old judge that there is such a thing as a game of skill
|
Luddite, the point is that poker is so fundamentally different in terms of how it works that you cannot use it as an example. It's like saying, "We know how to keep bugs off of crops: pesticides. We can use pesticides to prevent bugs in programs, then." Obviously that's a little more extreme, but it's not too different in terms of how poker is run vs how SC2 will (presumably) be run.
|
Good idea!
But it should either be free and Blizzard will get money from sc2 sales and adds. Or there should be a maximum cap on how much rake you can pay per month.
And there should mostly be micro level tournaments. People with gambling addiction tendencies should not be able to loose to much money.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On June 28 2008 22:07 Plexa wrote:
FA the principle concern i have about such a system is that you may get a division between those willing to pay to play in tournaments and those that just play casually
I would never pay to play in a tournament, i simply dont have the skill nor the $$ to do that. However lots of players may only chose to play in that style; effectively isolating them from me..
Im also sure people could rig up the tournament into a 2 man tournament for betgames..
There are pros and cons to this idea.. but on the whole i'm in favor of it; i just hope it doesn't divide the community
Which is why there can be free qualifiers to some of the $ tournaments!
And I'm pretty sure the $ touranaments, while they can probably work, wont fill nearly as quickly as the free ones so I think there'll be some overlap in the player pool.
On June 28 2008 22:28 parkin wrote:
Good idea!
But it should either be free and Blizzard will get money from sc2 sales and adds. Or there should be a maximum cap on how much rake you can pay per month.
And there should mostly be micro level tournaments. People with gambling addiction tendencies should not be able to loose to much money.
I think the majority of tournaments should be microstakes simply because this is a computer game and not poker - poker players throw money around like candy, I don't think poor (comparatively) gamers will do that  I wouldn't be too worried about gambling addicts choosing SC as their outlet.
Don't see the point of max-rake, what would blizzard gain from that? Maybe they can do it like Pokerstars does, give you bonus points based on how much you rake. These points can then be used in their online store / to buy into bigger tournaments / get tickets to events such as blizzcon or WWI.
On June 28 2008 22:16 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 21:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:
This isn't gambling, starcraft cannot possibly be defined as anything but a game of skill. So legally I don't see why this would be a problem.
The UIGEA is the most retarded piece of legislation ever tho. Bans poker but horse betting is fine. So logical.
Hopefully it will be repealed soon because it's just retarded -.-
Anyway, they allow Fantasy Sports too, which, as I understand, works very similarily to what I described. IE players buyin, then the winner/s take the majority of the money. Oh I know it is and I don't see it lasting very long either, the trouble is how are you going to convince an 80 year old judge that there is such a thing as a game of skill
Well, seeing as how they allow fantasy sports it would seem they are willing to make some kind of distinction between games.
Would be interesting to hear more about how MTG handles this, forget who posted it but that might be a good precedent.
|
Unless bnet requires you to be age 18 or over (which they won't) this won't happen in the form you're discussing.
|
On June 28 2008 22:50 SoleSteeler wrote:
Unless bnet requires you to be age 18 or over (which they won't) this won't happen in the form you're discussing.
This is optional...
|
On June 28 2008 23:15 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 22:50 SoleSteeler wrote:
Unless bnet requires you to be age 18 or over (which they won't) this won't happen in the form you're discussing.
This is optional...
I know, but unless there's a way to authenticate that you're 18 or older, this cannot happen.
(For the record, I'd love for something like this to be implemented, so don't think I'm against this idea at all)
|
Why do you guys keep talking about legal issues? Poker is being played for money online all around the world by people of all ages as we speak.
Starcraft is exactly the same.
|
You need to be over 18 to play online poker for money. In North America, at least.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
As long as they ostensible age checks it will probably be fine. It also depends on how SC2 bnet accounts will work, ie how much personal info you'll have to submit.. I dunno, but there has to be a way to solve it.
|
Must require a credit card is the usual way to do that.
|
I've thought about this before, it's just a something extra for the players willing to play. Players not willing to obviously don't have to, they don't have the right to complain and say no.
|
On June 29 2008 00:42 MiniRoman wrote:
I've thought about this before, it's just a something extra for the players willing to play. Players not willing to obviously don't have to, they don't have the right to complain and say no.
It's not an issue about complaining, it's the legal issues of having minors paying money for something online. You need a credit card to be able to do so. You need to have a way to make sure some 12 year old isn't wasting all his money on tournaments. While most of us would agree it should be ultimately up to the parents, we know that's not the way the world works. People are prone to making mistakes.
|
While a great idea in theory, I very much doubt money tournies would work. There are just too many problems that can arise. Such as a player using a hack. Also, the only people a money tourne would serve would be the best of the best. Theres no way in hell I would be putting money on the line knowing that Im not one of the best players in the world. In poker its different because there is enough of a luck element involved so people can enter and win even if they suck.
Sit and go tournes would be great, but without something on the line, you will get people abusing the system and just being royal jackasses. Your going to get a 32 player tournie that most games will result in a forfeit.
I think an automated toune that a player can setup would be best. Player chooses tourne style (double elimination etc) and number of entrants allowed in. He then invites participants who wish to join. There would be no reward but glory. But it would be a great system to have in place.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
I think blizzard already runs automated tournaments in WC3 that work fine :C
|
FA: WC3 tourneys aren't fine. Take a look at WCReplays and you will find the overwhelming concerns of:
1. A mostly dead casual ladder/tourney system
2. Rampant hacking - there have been tourneys where the two finalist got there by tiehacking the whole way.
Having tourneys ALL the time dilutes the value and excitement of tourneys. Top players don't have infinite amounts of time - neither do casual players. If we had TSL all year round, I'm sure we would see the quality go down. The experience is what matters, and IMO it's more important to preserve the experience than offer everything.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Ok, fine - that can be fixed. I haven't played the WC3 tournaments in many years so all I had to go by was them working perfectly when I played, heh.
Is the hacking a problem in ladder too or only in these tournaments?
Your 2nd point is just.. I don't mean any offense but I find this, and some other points made in this thread, to be mind boggling >_<
These tournaments aren't like OSL, MSL; primeleague, they aren't meant to be followed by tonnes of people - they are meant to for the players. For anyone.
Being able to just play a tounament whenever you want is HUGE, I don't understand how anyone could not see this. Top players don't have time to play in every one of these tournaments - obviously not, but there'll always be players who want to play, regardless of what time of the day.
And you know what, these tournaments aren't even on scheduled times, they just start when X players have registered.
The excitement you talk about doesn't even really belong in these tournaments, that happens when you have big tournaments, with big prizes and these will still happen.
As a player I don't understand why you wouldn't want to have tournaments available for you to play whenever you want. The big, exciting, prestigious tournaments will still be there, on a scheduled time. That's the ones you make time for, these other tournaments you just play whenever you feel like.
I'll use poker as an example: there are THOUSANDS of sit n gos going every single day. Yet when the big events come around (WSOP, WPT, EPT or the big online tournaments like the weekly Sunday Million) people are still interested. In fact, this is the only type of interest that attracts interest (in the form of observers, mass interest etc), the sit n gos are just for the ones playing.
|
On June 29 2008 02:04 architecture wrote:
FA: WC3 tourneys aren't fine. Take a look at WCReplays and you will find the overwhelming concerns of:
1. A mostly dead casual ladder/tourney system
2. Rampant hacking - there have been tourneys where the two finalist got there by tiehacking the whole way.
Having tourneys ALL the time dilutes the value and excitement of tourneys. Top players don't have infinite amounts of time - neither do casual players. If we had TSL all year round, I'm sure we would see the quality go down. The experience is what matters, and IMO it's more important to preserve the experience than offer everything.
The War3 tournaments aren't like that because they are flawed, the ENTIRE ladder is like that. After 1.14, when the new AMM was released and WoW came out, all the "good" players left the realm and abandoned the ladder in favor of Europe or the eventual GG-Client. Every single player in the top 20 was not capable of top 100 on Azeroth back in the golden years.
Tournaments used to mean something when non-pros were able to win it, but you are right that now they are dead and anyone is capable if winning, even those who aren't good enough to compete in leagues or don't know how to play (tiehackers). The tournament system in place is fine, Blizzard abandoning WC3 is the problem. If they took the current AMM or tournament system and implemented it in SCII with slight modifications, it would work (improvements would be swell). Having tournies all the time is simply so normal people can achieve the icons. TSL provides money, War3 tournaments are for icons, and Blizzard's yearly "seasonal" tournaments provide money and are not daily events and are more comparable to TSL.
And as for FrozenArbitier's idea. I think it's a waste of bandwidth and I don't think enough people will want to do it to warrant implementing it. Just think how many more people will play free tournaments versus p2p tournaments.
I believe MLG offers a similar system for Xbox 360 games online but that is of course 3rd party and I can't comment further on it because I don't know how it works.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Who cares if more people play the free ones if they generate 0 income but use the same infrastructure as the P2P ones? It's like, if you want to implement the free ones and don't have any moral objections towards P2P tournaments you might as well implement both.
Maybe 4 free tournaments will start for every P2P one but that's fine :O
|
Its not entirely unplausable that Blizzard wouldnt impliment this kind of thing as they ran a pay-in arena tournament for World of Warcraft.
If this was a Bi-annual ladder with a one time entry of under a tenner this would be ok I guess. I would be worried that it would split the community. For example would a win in a pay in tournament be more prestigous than a free tourney?
On a more personal note I feel that although adding loads of pay in tournaments may make the game more competitive it would probably be at the cost of fun.
I would much rather the rewards of the best players come from Sponsors than the average Joe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
