EPTHow does starcraft qualifies as gambling? As much as there is some luck involved in it, it still doesn't come as close as the amount of skill that implies in the final result.
[D] Automated tournaments and Paying2Play - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
How does starcraft qualifies as gambling? As much as there is some luck involved in it, it still doesn't come as close as the amount of skill that implies in the final result. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
It's hilariously corrupt =] Btw under the dictionary definition of gambling you could consider any game played for money to be gambling, including chess tournaments. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
| ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On June 30 2008 19:26 caution.slip wrote: Its a good idea, first and foremost no one is forcing you to play for money, so if you don't like it, sit out of it Having these money based tournaments motivates blizzard and the players. Blizzard will spend more effort making the game hackfree because they'll be constantly making money as long as these tournaments are going on, and players will up their game because they get to win money Where do you see that? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-05-12-gamer-demographics_x.htm age of average gamer: 29 age of average buyer: 36 Anyways to propose an idea to prevent "pros" constantly raking in, you could have different divisions, based on whatever system SC2 is going to use to rank players on the AMM. Maybe only players within 5 ranks of each other can be in any tournament. I think it should be a requirement that a player's account should have a minimum required number of games played before being allowed to enter, preventing smurf accounts. However if break into different divisions, this raises the problem of pros smurfing on their friends' lower division account. There would probably have to be a board of review at blizzard that would compare the tournament games to the players previous games (possibly blizzard saves one replay from a player every 10th game as a record, or a term of use of entering a tournament is to keep a record of all your games) I mean its definitely possible, it just needs proper checks and regulations, but it also needs to be simple enough for people to use it Obviously those statistics are wrong (or at least for this type of game) Do you honestly think around 50% of the people on this forum are 29 or older? I would venture a guess that the average SC/BW player is somewhere around 17. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On July 01 2008 07:15 [X]Ken_D wrote: I don't get why people keep saying this. The TSL had a $10,000 cash pool, was it ruined by hackers?I like the idea, but it can easily be ruin by hacking. With money involved, it would be an even greater problem. And TL admins were doing only a voluntary job. If we had automated tournaments like FA propose, you could have a small % of the money to hire admins to search for hackers. The more tournaments played, the more dedicated admins. So it could have even better anti-hacking than the TSL. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
VIB. You aren't seeing how big the scope is if tournaments are automated. Tournaments are so frequent, that hackers can win tournament. With so many games, there won't be enough admins. | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
On July 01 2008 11:31 [X]Ken_D wrote: Starcraft would most likely fall under gambling if it had SNG payment. Horse betting is an extreme example rather than the norm. Government isn't going to bend just for Starcraft. Online poker is banned in the US yet those that play poker knows how much skill is involved. At least poker has its data on the server side to prevent hacking. Starcraft is peer to peer which opens the door for hackers to exploit. VIB. You aren't seeing how big the scope is if tournaments are automated. Tournaments are so frequent, that hackers can win tournament. but with good amount of paid admins as VIB wrote they can be banned and in hardcore situations some parts of tournaments redone, especially if they would be extended over time more... | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Hack vs anti-hack has always, since the dawn of times being a battle of persistence. Whoever is more dedicated to keep their hacks/anti-hacks updated wins. Usually hackers wins because there are just much more kids with free time than there are paid programmers. But with pay2play tournaments the balance actually shifts in favor of anti-hack. Because no matter how good your map hack is, a freelance programmer with 100 apm will never beat a progamer in a paid tournament, so they don't have much extra incentive to keep updating hacks as they already do today. But on the other had now you have many new admins and programmers getting paid to build anti-hacks and search replays for suspicious actions. So all-in-all at the end I think hacking can be handled adequately. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
I mean it doesn't necessarily has to be an infinite amount of games that start as soon as they fill up. You could limit the number of tournaments, at least at the initial phase to make sure we can control it. If TSL and Iccup can deal hackers with voluntary admins. Then I'm sure pay2play tournaments with paid admins could as well. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
With hacks and money incentive, it's just overwelming to handle and will give Starcraft & Blizzard brand a bad name  . At best money related, I can see paying for virtual items being use in games like decorations, LOL. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
Plus you can slow down or start at a slower pace to make sure you can catch up with hackers. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On July 01 2008 10:02 CharlieMurphy wrote: Obviously those statistics are wrong (or at least for this type of game) Do you honestly think around 50% of the people on this forum are 29 or older? I would venture a guess that the average SC/BW player is somewhere around 17. The highly unique pool of individuals that consist of TeamLiquid is hardly a fair representative of the entire SC crowd (when people think of TL they think of "hard core"), let alone the entire crowd of people who play, has played, or will consider playing RTS games. that begets the question, what is the average age of a TL member? You could enter your birthdate at registration right? Is like a TL.net useless statistics page? cause those really tickle my fancy Anyways the biggest problem by far is hackers, SC2 being hosted by bnet servers would help, but even in WC3 there are hacks for ladder right? (they're just private, or really hard to find). | ||
|
Tiptup
United States133 Posts
Though this kind of appeal to pro gamers would definitely make me want Blizzard to offer an additional default area for StarCraft gaming (apart from normal matchmaking and custom games): Casual Games. The Casual area would function much like the current b.net matchmaking for melee/FFA games, but it wouldn't keep track of wins/losses (just games played) and have the game speed at normal (instead of fastest) to give players like myself a fun place to remain newbish. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
actually i was playing AoE3 and i thought to myself "damn the unit reponse is so bad" but then i put the speed on fast and everything felt better, although AoE3 on fast is ridiculous I'm pretty sure bnet won't be P2P...no way... | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 01 2008 11:59 [X]Ken_D wrote: Korean progamer can stomp 100apm hackers no problem. Progamers, again are the the extreme rather than the norm. There are so many games that not all tournaments are won by players like Nada. There are so many games on poker sites, I had never encounter a pro especially at the lower buyins. With hacks and money incentive, it's just overwelming to handle and will give Starcraft & Blizzard brand a bad name . At best money related, I can see paying for virtual items being use in games like decorations, LOL.I think you are vastly overestimating how many people would be willing to pay to play in these tournaments on a regulra basis if you think it's going to be anything like poker. Everyone there is there for the explicit purpose of playing poker for money while the majority of BNetters won't be interested/capable/want to. I think it will be much smaller scale, but still great. | ||
|
Tiptup
United States133 Posts
On July 01 2008 15:21 caution.slip wrote: there is no way you play SC at normal speed, its agonizingly slow...i couldn't even touch "fast" when it was on bnet ladder years ago actually i was playing AoE3 and i thought to myself "damn the unit reponse is so bad" but then i put the speed on fast and everything felt better, although AoE3 on fast is ridiculous I was assuming that blizzard was planning on increasing the speed of the game by quite a bit (so fastest would be even faster in SC2). If so, normal shouldn't be too boring for casual players (assuming the gameplay itself isn't too slow from things like MBS). Plus, it doesn't hurt new players to learn at a slightly slower speed and this way I could get my friends to join in more often. Other than that, I do agree with what you're saying. I wouldn't want to play a game that I simply stare at for much of the time. | ||
|
draeger
United States3256 Posts
1) Where does Blizzard supervision come into play? At casinos, they only allow you to lose so much before they cut you off. What about the guy who just gets addicted to online tournaments and keeps losing and losing and losing and losing back to back to back. What's to stop someone with a problem (gambling addiction is real according to people who make up this stuff) from burning $1000 in a couple days on tournament losses? Does Blizzard want to be responsible for this? In a way, they are ruining someone's life if they abuse the system to the point where they go bankrupt. 2) You've mentioned that it wouldn't be very large scale or popular. However setting up the game to handle secure storage of payment info would be a rather huge code modification and risk. Why would this be worth it to appease a small percentage of players? Sit and go freebies (or ladder ratings) yeah, sounds fun. Blizzard sponsered regular tournaments? Again, cool idea. Having a cash game sit and go completely untouched by Blizzard? This is just asking for trouble. | ||
|
Tiamat
United States498 Posts
Besides how are you going to handle disconnects? The Map pool? A guy plays 2 games, wins them. and all of a sudden he gets called in to handle a project before the 3rd, so he is penalized for that? In the poker realm, a guy can "sit out" and still have a chance to come back in the end, sure the blinds eat away at his stash but he can still rejoin the action. you can't do that in SC. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 04 2008 03:42 draeger wrote: Some comments: 1) Where does Blizzard supervision come into play? At casinos, they only allow you to lose so much before they cut you off. What about the guy who just gets addicted to online tournaments and keeps losing and losing and losing and losing back to back to back. What's to stop someone with a problem (gambling addiction is real according to people who make up this stuff) from burning $1000 in a couple days on tournament losses? Does Blizzard want to be responsible for this? In a way, they are ruining someone's life if they abuse the system to the point where they go bankrupt. If you manage to go bankrupt playing 5$ tournaments - that probably still take a couple of hours and will probably not insta fill up - you've got bigger problems than gambling ;p Casinos cut you off? Eh, maybe, but that's after you've lost millions. Online sites don't cut you off as far as I'm aware. 2) You've mentioned that it wouldn't be very large scale or popular. However setting up the game to handle secure storage of payment info would be a rather huge code modification and risk. Why would this be worth it to appease a small percentage of players? Sit and go freebies (or ladder ratings) yeah, sounds fun. Blizzard sponsered regular tournaments? Again, cool idea. Having a cash game sit and go completely untouched by Blizzard? This is just asking for trouble. I dunno how different it would be from how they handle WoW payments o_O; You could even sell "gamecards" with tokens for playing in these tournaments or however WoW handles it. On July 04 2008 04:05 Tiamat wrote: Not going to happen, the game has to be perfectly balanced to a level that not even Starcraft has reached yet. What? Explanation please cause I don't see the relevance. If the game is good enough to play for thousands of dollars - and we still see an even racial distribution - then it's good enough to play for 5$. Besides how are you going to handle disconnects? If this works out they can easily have a team dealing with this stuff. The Map pool? ........ I'm fine with people disagreeing but please don't bring up totally silly reasons. The map pool!? Oh my, I don't know, maybe use the ladder map pool and have it updated every now and then? A guy plays 2 games, wins them. and all of a sudden he gets called in to handle a project before the 3rd, so he is penalized for that? In the poker realm, a guy can "sit out" and still have a chance to come back in the end, sure the blinds eat away at his stash but he can still rejoin the action. you can't do that in SC. If you sit out after winning 2 games, the poker equivalent being sitting out when the blinds are high, you are effectively forfeiting. This is an even dumber reason than the map pool -.- I'm fine with the other two but wtf, if you don't like the idea that's fine but I really hope you aren't really worried about THIS? I mean.. if you forfeit you forfeit, it's up to you. | ||
| ||
