Forum
ESAGamer Launch
Created 6th June 2013 @ 20:18
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 ... 12 Next »
I’m kinda backing sideshow here, I mean its nice there is going to be another league to play in, however paying a fee to play (especially in lower divs) without any chance of actually getting some back of if doesn’t seem that appealing to me. Not to mention the fact that the ‘proven’ business model is for the US scene if I’m correct? The assumption is made that EU players have the same attitude towards it, not to mention the fact that if you want to keep it operational you do need a substantial amount of players paying/putting money in somehow to guarantee your prices. Another thing that is going to give issues is your known and free competitors, being ETF2L and to some lesser extent wireplay.
After this still some questions remain:
You are aiming at an EU audience yet go for the NA format?
Say you win something, the money gets put into the users’ account, could one wire this to his/her paypal/bank account?
How will you ensure that relatively high skilled players don’t go and win the lower or medium-end prizepools? The dynamic balancing sounds fancy, but creating a so called ‘smurf’ account makes someone start all over and thus be a potential prize pirate.
Anyway, I’m hoping this website will succeed to some extent, more leagues for TF2 is better! GL
“however paying a fee to play (especially in lower divs) without any chance of actually getting some back of if doesn’t seem that appealing to me. Not to mention the fact that the ‘proven’ business model is for the US scene if I’m correct?”
I think if you will find that this model proposes that all skill levels have their own separate tournaments with cash prizes. The ‘proven’ model that I think you are referring too only provides prizes for the very top teams. This model proposes tournaments of credible quality for each skill level for one low cost and gives you money back so you can make even more, if you wish, and it’s still only cost you your low subscription fee.
Free tournaments are on the agenda, the code is ready and waiting for us to publish it, so people can compete, without having to contribute a penny and still get their kicks for playing for points. At the end of the day, if the 98% of the community want a chance to play for money, that money needs to come from somewhere. A low subscription and a crowd funded approach is the only way to guarantee that… we just need to build the trust and demonstrate how fair we’re making it.
All money is paid instantly into your online accounts, you can withdraw it to your designated bank account at any time, there are no restrictions, it’s your money and you can do what you please with it, however, it’s an attractive proposition to pay one small fee with the potential of so many more cash tournaments. It’s manageable and affordable to all.
If you have registered on ESA, you will notice that teams/players have a grey square on their profile – in order for that to change, participants must play a minimum amount of games before your rank changes, this prevents teams from jumping into a tiered tournament and taking advantage.
If teams are smurfing to compete in the lower skilled tournaments, they would need to win that tournament to get a prize, so their rank improves thus proving to be an ineffective way of participating…. You would need to smurf then win in rotation – when you could just concentrate on winning and climbing the rankings where you’re invited into tournaments of a much greater prize pool.
Creating a secondary account is also difficult, as tournaments will usually run concurrently, in addition user accounts have a 1:1 relationship with our payment processor, so technically difficult to achieve such a pointless goal.
We suspected players would be dubious, it’s a new concept, it’s a new company but we’ve got resources to see us through, but it also helps if people think “stuff it, it’s only a fiver, I may as well give it a go and see what happens”
I can’t find the information anywhere, and the descriptions in this thread are pretty convoluted, so I’ll ask.
What does this £5 actually get you that paying it doesn’t?
I’m confused by your prize distribution model (https://esagamer.com/prizepool). Why is the prize pool divided evenly between low medium and high skill tiers??? This gives no incentive to move up the ranks, if anything it’s a deterrent. You go from winning the most money in the low tier only to be “promoted” to the medium tier and earn nothing due to a lower position finish????
Also, “Your subscriptions are recycled into free entry tournaments”, how does this encourage subscription? Surely if you subscribe then you should be able to enter into the “subscriber tournament” and earn money there? And free to play tournaments should have little to no prize pool, hence people are encouraged to subscribe and increase the prize pool?????
Let’s say you are Epsilon and with this model you enter a “free to play” cash prize tournament, why would you subscribe and waste your money when you can just win the tournament and the prize money for free? It seems like a flawed system, and there’s a lot of confusion here. I think you need to be clearer in your actions/intentions.
Please tell me I’m missing something.
Quoted from kos
I’m confused by your prize distribution model (https://esagamer.com/prizepool). Why is the prize pool divided evenly between low medium and high skill tiers??? This gives no incentive to move up the ranks, if anything it’s a deterrent. You go from winning the most money in the low tier only to be “promoted” to the medium tier and earn nothing due to a lower position finish????
Obviously, if you win a prize in the mid-tier, you will be upgraded to a higher level without ask (=?)
Last edited by caeli,
Quoted from kos
I’m confused by your prize distribution model (https://esagamer.com/prizepool). Why is the prize pool divided evenly between low medium and high skill tiers??? This gives no incentive to move up the ranks, if anything it’s a deterrent. You go from winning the most money in the low tier only to be “promoted” to the medium tier and earn nothing due to a lower position finish????
Even though i like the idea to split the money evenly this could really be a problem. Those who only play to win money could try to exploit this.
Quoted from kos
Also, “Your subscriptions are recycled into free entry tournaments”, how does this encourage subscription? Surely if you subscribe then you should be able to enter into the “subscriber tournament” and earn money there? And free to play tournaments should have little to no prize pool, hence people are encouraged to subscribe and increase the prize pool?????
Let’s say you are Epsilon and with this model you enter a “free to play” cash prize tournament, why would you subscribe and waste your money when you can just win the tournament and the prize money for free? It seems like a flawed system, and there’s a lot of confusion here. I think you need to be clearer in your actions/intentions.Please tell me I’m missing something.
No subscription -> no price money
1 subscriber on the team (6s) -> 1/6 of the price money
You may have a point in terms of the evenly split prize pool between the 3 tiers of skill, although I don’t totally agree that there is no incentive, as there is an invite only final for the teams closer to the top of the rankings – and once we’ve grown a user base, I’m sure sponsorships will come – which again, like all other leagues, are only for the top teams.
Tournaments aren’t exclusive to people who have subscribed, teams can compete with members who are not subscribed similarly teams can compete with zero members subscribed…. Teams are made aware (obviously not clear enough at this moment in time) of their teams subscription rate – for instance, if your team of 8 members only has 4 members subscribed and you finished first with an entitlement of £400 – your team would only receive £200 – because your teams subscription rate is only 50% – If none of your team has subscribed, you won’t receive a penny – You would just climb the rankings and live in the knowledge that if you would have contributed, you would have received what you should have won.
Teams are also required to play a minimum amount of games to be assigned a skill category, it’s not as simple as… well lets create a new team and play in low skilled tournaments, because the minimum game requirement makes it uneconomical and a waste of time. Plus we’re not stupid anyway and will keep an eye out for it.
Quoted from Setsul
[…]Even though i like the idea to split the money evenly this could really be a problem. Those who only play to win money could try to exploit this.
[…]No subscription -> no price money
1 subscriber on the team (6s) -> 1/6 of the price money
This way only prem teams will pay subscription.
That’s the system at the moment, and that is exactly what will happen.
Only teams who know they’re gonna win their respective bracket will pay a subscription fee. Your estimate of 1000 subscribers in one month means that you think 167 teams of 6 players think they are at the top of their respective skill tiers and will subscribe to win money. That’s just not true.
This results in tiny prize pools, in effect you’re just winning back whatever you put in at the start, and this isn’t going to make anybody want to spend time competing or breed a competitive atmosphere that drives the skill and motivation of teams.
There really is no incentive because even if a team at the top of the middle bracket really really really wants to enter the top bracket and win it, let’s be honest they’ve got no chance. Their best option is just to play in higher divisions in ETF2L until they get to the top, whilst simultaneously sandbagging the shit out of the middle bracket and winning money.
Also what happens to the rest of the money if your team is entitled to £200 but only half are subscribers therefore your team only gets £100? Where does the extra £100 go, into your pockets?
Last edited by Sideshow,
I don’t get what point you’re referring too when you say “that’s the system at the moment and that’s exactly what will happen”.
Put into perspective, ETF2L has approx 2000 active members, competing for approx 2 months for €1000 (£850~) if ESA could magically attract those members and tempt them into a subscription today, that would equate to 9 x £833 (3 for each skill level) 1 x £2000 (open tournament) and 1 x £2500 final (invite only for top teams) EACH MONTH.
A slice of that is worth £5? no? – well if you won only £100 of the above, paid in your ESA balance and you could pick and gauge how good your opponents are… what could you make that £100 into? Probably more… Still not worth a fiver? If you’re answer is still no, your intentionally trying to be negative.
The system doesn’t guarantee to make everybody a winner but it proposes and pledges that will try and make tournaments available for people who want to contribute.
TF2 certainly has more than 2000 people playing… the more people that buy into it, the more the prizes are…. The longer and more established we are, the more robust our system is and the better the overall service will be.
Quoted from Didge-
I don’t get what point you’re referring too when you say “that’s the system at the moment and that’s exactly what will happen”.
I mean that your system is as he described, and as also surmised, only the people who are gonna win will pay.
Quoted from Didge-
Put into perspective, ETF2L has approx 2000 active members, competing for approx 2 months for €1000 (£850~) if ESA could magically attract those members and tempt them into a subscription today, that would equate to 9 x £833 (3 for each skill level) 1 x £2000 (open tournament) and 1 x £2500 final (invite only for top teams) EACH MONTH.
People in ETF2L don’t compete for the money, they compete for the competition and to get better and because they enjoy it. You’re basing these figures on attracting every single team in ETF2L to your tournaments and more (only 1872 players this season if you assume every team has 6 players who would subscribe) which is totally unrealistic, even if you had a great business model you can’t expect that kind of signup. And you still haven’t identified a reason why people would pay if they don’t have a chance of winning.
Also Quoted from Sideshow
What does this £5 actually get you that playing for free doesn’t?
Is it just that if you win, you receive prize money as a subscriber? Or is there more to it than that?
And Quoted from Sideshow
what happens to the rest of the money if your team is entitled to £200 but only half are subscribers therefore your team only gets £100? Where does the extra £100 go, into your pockets?
This is important :)
Sure, a lot of gamers don’t play for money… a lot of people do their hobbies for their own reasons, very rarely for cash incentive. People can still play for fun and points at ESA… except you can measure your competitiveness and improvement a bit easier in this system. That’s a service that’s free for everyone… but if you want to try and win some money, for something you’re doing for free anyway, then why not try and play for money… its entirely up to the end user.
If you do not want to play at ESA, you don’t have too. There is an obvious benefit that has been fairly well received thus far and I guess it will continue to grow… Time will tell but this isn’t something I ever envisaged taking off right away… do I think its sustainable? yes! do I think people will use the service? yes! do I think its a fair proposition to the users? yes
The membership does provide some intangible benefits that users may find attractive, again thats down to the individual to judge – but I know I’m packing a lot more value in my premium package than most league sites which are making profit today. Any profit earned will go straight back into the development of ESA or back into tournaments, but even still, I am entitled to make a profit from it if I so wish.
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 ... 12 Next »
content rss