|
On July 04 2008 04:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:
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.
Remember that games target young kids. A 17 year old kid is going to have tons of disposable income, yet those are the players who are most likely going to be suckered into losing the most.
Casinos in the US will flag you if you've lost more than a few thousand dollars in an evening. At that point you either have to prove you can stake it or come back another night.
I don't know much about online sites, I stopped following that scene years ago.
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.
Software can't just magically be transplanted from 1 game to another. I'm sure it would require a very lofty upgrade to the current battle.net code to allow for secure, real money transactions to take place.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 04 2008 06:50 draeger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 04:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:
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.
Remember that games target young kids. A 17 year old kid is going to have tons of disposable income, yet those are the players who are most likely going to be suckered into losing the most. And again - if you manage to lose a relevant amount of money (that wouldnt have been "lost" paying for games, booze, whatever other entertainment) on these tournaments, I'd be pretty impressed.
I don't know, can 17 year olds get credit cards? If not, they can't legally play anyway.
Casinos in the US will flag you if you've lost more than a few thousand dollars in an evening. At that point you either have to prove you can stake it or come back another night.
I don't know much about online sites, I stopped following that scene years ago.
Well, online sites don't.
Show nested quote +
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.
Software can't just magically be transplanted from 1 game to another. I'm sure it would require a very lofty upgrade to the current battle.net code to allow for secure, real money transactions to take place.
Seeing as how they are rebuilding battle.net anyway it's not like they'd have to tear everything up just to implement this one thing.
|
On July 04 2008 07:30 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 06:50 draeger wrote:On July 04 2008 04:27 FrozenArbiter wrote:
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.
Remember that games target young kids. A 17 year old kid is going to have tons of disposable income, yet those are the players who are most likely going to be suckered into losing the most. And again - if you manage to lose a relevant amount of money (that wouldnt have been "lost" paying for games, booze, whatever other entertainment) on these tournaments, I'd be pretty impressed. I don't know, can 17 year olds get credit cards? If not, they can't legally play anyway.
They can, but they need parental permission, I'm fairly certain. And I'd venture a guess that most parents watch their kids spending on credit/debit cards when they're still under 18 (at least mine did). So its not *too* much of an issue (and even if it were, how exactly is that Blizzard's responsibility? If they make a rule saying 'You must be over 18 to play', you can't fault them for people breaking said rule).
|
On June 28 2008 17:41 d.arkive wrote:
I wouldn't do it because I hate paying for things, but it sounds like a fine idea.
I honestly have to agree with this. Money is not meant to be spent... It is meant to be saved and kept to maintain your feeling of having the money. Not to mention if you get 2-0 cheesed like Bisu, then it must not feel too good, especially when you lose $5.
EDIT: I have an idea, free tournaments with no incentive other than a way to competitively play a few games.
Idea: Also you could have the prices each have a "rank" tournament.
Free would be D Rank tourney, $1, would be C, #5 would be B, and $10 would be A. Or something of that sort. You could have these show in the records where a guy won 15 A tournaments, etc. etc.
There should also be skill filtered tournaments, so players can't abuse their skill and ruin games for lesser players.
|
On July 04 2008 10:15 DeathTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 17:41 d.arkive wrote:
I wouldn't do it because I hate paying for things, but it sounds like a fine idea. I honestly have to agree with this. Money is not meant to be spent... It is meant to be saved and kept to maintain your feeling of having the money. Not to mention if you get 2-0 cheesed like Bisu, then it must not feel too good, especially when you lose $5. EDIT: I have an idea, free tournaments with no incentive other than a way to competitively play a few games. Idea: Also you could have the prices each have a "rank" tournament. Free would be D Rank tourney, $1, would be C, #5 would be B, and $10 would be A. Or something of that sort. You could have these show in the records where a guy won 15 A tournaments, etc. etc. There should also be skill filtered tournaments, so players can't abuse their skill and ruin games for lesser players.
Or maybe divisions, not ranks? Ranks shouldn't be based on amount of cash paid because it would insult players' skill. Some guy winning free tournament can be better than even B or A
+ it would widen skill gap of tournaments to fit somewhere better without adding + and - 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 04 2008 10:15 DeathTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 17:41 d.arkive wrote:
I wouldn't do it because I hate paying for things, but it sounds like a fine idea. I honestly have to agree with this. Money is not meant to be spent... It is meant to be saved and kept to maintain your feeling of having the money. Not to mention if you get 2-0 cheesed like Bisu, then it must not feel too good, especially when you lose $5. EDIT: I have an idea, free tournaments with no incentive other than a way to competitively play a few games. Idea: Also you could have the prices each have a "rank" tournament. Free would be D Rank tourney, $1, would be C, #5 would be B, and $10 would be A. Or something of that sort. You could have these show in the records where a guy won 15 A tournaments, etc. etc. There should also be skill filtered tournaments, so players can't abuse their skill and ruin games for lesser players.
What's the point of having money if you don't use it... Can't really tell if that was sarcasm.
I don't think having ranks based on buyin fee is a great idea. Can an A rank not join D rank tournaments? That's bad cause I think most tournaments will be free.
It's also bad if he can't join the lower buyin fees simply because I don't think the others will run nearly often enough. It will just lead to people creating new accounts so they can actually play.
|
On July 04 2008 17:28 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 10:15 DeathTray wrote:On June 28 2008 17:41 d.arkive wrote:
I wouldn't do it because I hate paying for things, but it sounds like a fine idea. I honestly have to agree with this. Money is not meant to be spent... It is meant to be saved and kept to maintain your feeling of having the money. Not to mention if you get 2-0 cheesed like Bisu, then it must not feel too good, especially when you lose $5. EDIT: I have an idea, free tournaments with no incentive other than a way to competitively play a few games. Idea: Also you could have the prices each have a "rank" tournament. Free would be D Rank tourney, $1, would be C, #5 would be B, and $10 would be A. Or something of that sort. You could have these show in the records where a guy won 15 A tournaments, etc. etc. There should also be skill filtered tournaments, so players can't abuse their skill and ruin games for lesser players. + Show Spoiler +What's the point of having money if you don't use it... Can't really tell if that was sarcasm.
I don't think having ranks based on buyin fee is a great idea. Can an A rank not join D rank tournaments? That's bad cause I think most tournaments will be free.
It's also bad if he can't join the lower buyin fees simply because I don't think the others will run nearly often enough. It will just lead to people creating new accounts so they can actually play.
+ making more tournaments based on not only skill but fee too*, on the other hand blocking higher fee ones not to let rash for starter, only to call it poker later, could be another way to go...
(* called like Division 1 for 5$ and for 10$; Division 2 for 5$ and for 10$ etc?)
edit: to avoid shorter and longer qualifiers system to sum bigger prizes
|
On July 04 2008 04:05 Tiamat wrote:
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.
I actually think that this would be one of the best functions of the pay tournament. The reason is that every time i have played a non-official tournament people has dropped off in hordes. Atleast this gives them some reason to stay.
And about people being extremly rude the soulution is very simple. Allow replays to record what the people are writing. Then you can just send the replay to blizzard and then will ban the guy from the tournament.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
Hello, my 1st post here.
Great idea by op, and I am sorry in advance to bump a old thread (I can't create a new thread at the moment).
I just want to suggest few ideas myself for Battle.net v2.0
1) Able to join multiple chat rooms and being able to toggle between them instantly (similar to irc), and It would be great if the rooms are still able run in background even if you are in a game.
2) Along with the four usual servers / realms (ie. useast/useast/asia/europe), blizzard should make one central server which acts as an a hub.
*All the battle.net features (chat rooms, friend list functions, advertisement, clan functions and etc) could be hosted on this central server excluding games which should be hosted on there respected realms.
Benefits:
1)This would allow bandwidth of the sub realms (useast, etc) to be used only for gaming and this would decrease latency.
2)This would allow all the players connected to starcraft2 to communicate in 1 central hub, meaning a bigger and better community which is not divided by four usual realms.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
I like it. I will get sharked and loose all my money. But I like it.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Since this thread has been bumped anyway..
- Instead of having live streams for these games (since that'd lead to a loooot of cheating, no doubt), you could simply have all replays go up (might not be popular with some players..)
- Someone (teacake I think) said something like "people aren't gonna want to play 5$ just to get knocked out in 1 game".. Well, from what I remember, the WC3 automated tournaments let you play far more than 1 game, I don't remember/know how they worked exactly tho.. Swiss style? Round robin? I know there was a X hour period or so where you just got to play play play then at the end of that I assume the top X advanced into brackets? I duno.
|
I'm still not aware of a mainstream internet chess server that has people playing for money.
Just have general pay to play. Then you can also do some prize money and they can hire Artosis to do commentary. Poker isn't a sport because of the money.
Also fixes the whole paying for 3 single players games you don't want to keep your multiplayer game up to date.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Poker wouldn't even be a shadow of its current self if it wasn't for money. Is it a fun game? Yeah, but a large part of the appeal is watching people win and lose HUGE amounts of money (and making huge bluffs/calls) while doing so.
There's no fucking way poker would have ever gotten as big as it is now if it wasn't for the money, and even today the prizepools of the big tournaments are made up from the entrance fees.
As for wanting pay to play online over having pay to play tournaments... *sigh*
Your hatred the expansions is getting a bit silly  I would pay to play, but many people wouldn't + I DO want to play the single player and hence I'll now pay for both.
Paying to play COULD be acceptable with the proper futures, but I hope you realize that for the vast majorit, the game would now be a fuckload more expensive (I think most people want to play single player as well as multi).
|
I just want to say that this idea is incredibly cool and exciting, as a poker player myself, I think this would truly make SC2 more than a game, but the competitive esport/phenomenon I dream it can be. I don't know that it will ever happen (because of "online gambling" issues), but I would sign any petition or do anything else to have Blizzard implement this. I hope they read this thread, see the responses, and really think about doing this!
|
I like the idea of around the clock online tournaments, but the monetary component will need to be handled outside of Battle.net. Overcoming some of the pitfalls mentioned in this thread is not a trivial task. Blizzard will not be opening this can of worms. The best we can hope for is a framework that allows communities to do this kind of thing outside of Battle.net. A productive discussion topic would center around tools in Battle.net 2.0 that would help make this happen.
|
On October 21 2008 23:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
- Someone (teacake I think) said something like "people aren't gonna want to play 5$ just to get knocked out in 1 game".. Well, from what I remember, the WC3 automated tournaments let you play far more than 1 game, I don't remember/know how they worked exactly tho.. Swiss style? Round robin? I know there was a X hour period or so where you just got to play play play then at the end of that I assume the top X advanced into brackets? I duno.
WC3 tournaments had a 30 min signup period. A 3 hour period of time where you would play as many games as possible and then the top 16 would enter a single elimination bo3 event to get the victor.
These tournaments would have thousands of people playing in it. However if they had a buyin fee, there would be very few. If you know your not going to win, why would you pay money to enter? I think a money system would only have gosus playing in it and noobs who give it a try wouldnt be very fast to try it again.
Poker is at the stage that it is because there is a large luck component to it. I'm not the best poker player in the world. However thats not going to deter me from entering a 5 dollar buyin tournament, because I know that even if im playing against phil ivey, there is a chance I will win due to pure luck. Against boxer, no amount of luck is going to save me.
The problem is that this system will just destroy the weakest player, who will be detered from playing again. This in turn creates a new weakest player, who will be destroyed and wont return. The cycle continues until the system collapses on itself.
|
A main weakness in the poker analogy is that poker has a large random element in it. It is very uncommon for weak players to know they are losers - this is the reason good players can make good money playing poker.
On the other side of the spectrum is a game like chess - a game with relatively little money to be made (which is why some top chess players switched to poker, a la Dan Harrington). The reason there is little money to be made in chess and there is no betting on games between players is because it is painfully obvious who the better chess player is - he will usually always beat the lesser player, unlike poker, where in the course of only one session luck plays a very large role in who is a winner in such a short time.
Starcraft is much closer to chess than it is to poker... it is usually pretty obvious who the superior player is after just a couple games (and it usually takes just one). Assuming that most players won't put money up if they are confident they will lose (a fair assumption most of the time, I think) then that leaves only the top of the elite willing to put up money...A very small number of players.
|
It sounds like a great idea, I would love to see a larger selection of automated tourneys(like what's being done for Wc3 but more often and taking less time), as well as player created tournament options. It would be nice for popular clans or just groups of people to be able to make a tournament and have it be automated by BNET.
As far as 'money' tournaments go, that's a great idea, but I would prefer to have maybe 1 or 2 a week, possibly 1 a night. SC shouldn't be made into a game based around money, 1 a week would be ideal in my opinion. I'd also love from something like the Zotac Cup to be around for Sc2, but that would have to be sponsored by a third party.
It would be cool to have a once a month tourney and only players that had won previous tournaments would be allowed to participate. These could be bracket based and they could end up being a lot of fun. In general, tournaments are a lot of fun, but you don't want to make them 'boring'. If you constantly have tournaments running, then they're not going to be any fun. They need to be something special, where you have the opportunity to play in a 1v1 or 2v2 tournament twice a day, a money tournament once a week, and then a larger tournament once a month.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 22 2008 11:16 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2008 23:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:
- Someone (teacake I think) said something like "people aren't gonna want to play 5$ just to get knocked out in 1 game".. Well, from what I remember, the WC3 automated tournaments let you play far more than 1 game, I don't remember/know how they worked exactly tho.. Swiss style? Round robin? I know there was a X hour period or so where you just got to play play play then at the end of that I assume the top X advanced into brackets? I duno. WC3 tournaments had a 30 min signup period. A 3 hour period of time where you would play as many games as possible and then the top 16 would enter a single elimination bo3 event to get the victor. These tournaments would have thousands of people playing in it. However if they had a buyin fee, there would be very few. If you know your not going to win, why would you pay money to enter? I think a money system would only have gosus playing in it and noobs who give it a try wouldnt be very fast to try it again. Poker is at the stage that it is because there is a large luck component to it. I'm not the best poker player in the world. However thats not going to deter me from entering a 5 dollar buyin tournament, because I know that even if im playing against phil ivey, there is a chance I will win due to pure luck. Against boxer, no amount of luck is going to save me. The problem is that this system will just destroy the weakest player, who will be detered from playing again. This in turn creates a new weakest player, who will be destroyed and wont return. The cycle continues until the system collapses on itself.
I think there are enough people like myself who would gladly pay 5$ to play in a tournament with some decent players, regardless of my chances to win. Maybe I'm wrong about how people think, but there were plenty of bad players who signed up for things like TLTour.
On October 22 2008 13:33 vsrooks wrote:
It sounds like a great idea, I would love to see a larger selection of automated tourneys(like what's being done for Wc3 but more often and taking less time), as well as player created tournament options. It would be nice for popular clans or just groups of people to be able to make a tournament and have it be automated by BNET.
As far as 'money' tournaments go, that's a great idea, but I would prefer to have maybe 1 or 2 a week, possibly 1 a night. SC shouldn't be made into a game based around money, 1 a week would be ideal in my opinion. I'd also love from something like the Zotac Cup to be around for Sc2, but that would have to be sponsored by a third party.
It would be cool to have a once a month tourney and only players that had won previous tournaments would be allowed to participate. These could be bracket based and they could end up being a lot of fun. In general, tournaments are a lot of fun, but you don't want to make them 'boring'. If you constantly have tournaments running, then they're not going to be any fun. They need to be something special, where you have the opportunity to play in a 1v1 or 2v2 tournament twice a day, a money tournament once a week, and then a larger tournament once a month.
Small tournaments can run all the time, big tournaments can run infrequently and be the special ones.
On October 22 2008 13:24 ploy wrote:
A main weakness in the poker analogy is that poker has a large random element in it. It is very uncommon for weak players to know they are losers - this is the reason good players can make good money playing poker.
On the other side of the spectrum is a game like chess - a game with relatively little money to be made (which is why some top chess players switched to poker, a la Dan Harrington). The reason there is little money to be made in chess and there is no betting on games between players is because it is painfully obvious who the better chess player is - he will usually always beat the lesser player, unlike poker, where in the course of only one session luck plays a very large role in who is a winner in such a short time.
Starcraft is much closer to chess than it is to poker... it is usually pretty obvious who the superior player is after just a couple games (and it usually takes just one). Assuming that most players won't put money up if they are confident they will lose (a fair assumption most of the time, I think) then that leaves only the top of the elite willing to put up money...A very small number of players.
There is some degree of luck in SC + people have egos + a $ or 5 isn't that much money.
And if they implement features you have to pay for, they could use some of that money to run guaranteed prize money tournaments etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
