#Constant Tournament System

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

stark dust
#

(posted on behalf of @random grove )

In order to foster increased player retention, opportunities to earn, and a consistent sustainable revenue source for the DAO several community members have discussed the need for an automated tournament system.

Note this is only a rough idea and we should allow for the team to properly determine and develop the particulars assuming this is not already on their plate.

The system roughly works as thus:

There will be a menu for tournament mode that you can enter where you can choose from a variety of lobbies. Considerations are naturally first and foremost system created lobbies and secondly player created lobbies allowing for custom rulesets.

Tournaments will either have an entry fee associated with it or no entry fee which has its own benefits for community tournaments and so on.

You choose what entry fee you are comfortable with paying and perhaps the size of the tournament. You enter into a queue until 8,16,32 etc number of players fill it and then the tournament begins. Alternatives may include set times for tournaments to start say every 15 or 30 minutes. The system can divide players into different tournament brackets based on how many sign up for the selected times.

Tournaments can follow single elimination or double elimination with losers bracket

After the tournament is done the system/contract sends back appropriate prize winnings to top x players and the DAO receives say 5-10% of the entry fees.

In conclusion This creates an engaging loop of players wanting to test their mettle in a format proven through history to excite and entertain players and spectators alike while also enticing them with the constant opportunity to earn through the game without needing ponzinomics or always having to grind the ladder in ranked.

Additional note is a good tournament spectator mode is a must for streaming optics

Tldr: have tournaments constantly going that people can pay to enter and win prize money and DAO gets a kickback.

thick lava
#

Can we get a leaderbord in game and on the website also ?

Just to create rush to be better on the leaderboard ....

Again, don't have to be there at the start, can be phased in another release

lethal forge
thick lava
#

Well yeah but I mean for those tournament systems

random grove
#

Honestly a little confused @thick lava You just mean something like showing updates to brackets as the tournaments progress?

thick lava
#

I mean you have a ranking right now

Calculate a ranking on tournament, see how many win, loose, can replay all games from the players, etc

It's easy, each fight is a little flat file of data, easy to replay

Create an interesting way for people to challenge each other and be the best

random grove
#

Or build up points for winning tournaments throughout the week to get a bonus prize/entered into official illuvium tournament with the bigger prize pools?

@thick lava ok i think I more or less get what you mean. Would be cool to have the data and leaderboards to show who’s basically king of the tournaments. Storing match data might get a bit unwieldy storage wise though if you mean replays

thick lava
#

yep that's incentive even if we can't activate any paying an entrance fee

random grove
#

Idk the rules/laws admittedly though if a local card shop can run paid tournaments it makes zero sense why we can’t do so here. And ofc Jag is checking out that sponsorship system too aka backers

thick lava
#

Wouldn't it be cool to build "achievements" also for tournament winner like "Smartass first ever tournament winner" badge

Then can replay all his games, compare to other tournament winner, most played illuvials, North/South/East/West preference, etc. etc.

#

It's all web techno. Easier and faster to build and release and with a very short sprint-release cycle.

random grove
#

If we have even the custom tournament mode, then it creates avenues for third parties, guilds etc to do so on their own and not have the hassle of manually setting things up and also with a proper spectator system wont require people to share their streams which is a pain.

thick lava
#

Yep

The tech to replay match is already there on the team's hands. Just need a bridge directly on the website.

random grove
#

The team also still benefits from having a system set up in advance for any tournaments they make and long term should save a lot of headaches and streamline everything

thick lava
#

Then partners advertisment on the website or google = revdis

random grove
#

Maybe all tournaments will be hosted on that elusive t5 land that still hasn’t been sold

thick lava
#

BTW my messages in token were :

Can be a 2 sided IIP though

  • Auto-Tournament capabilities
  • Monetization

They are not mutually exclusive, tournament is a marketing tool, monetization is a incentive tool for players + ROI tool for the project

Definitely easier to justify the investment if can do both, but if legal come back with a "no no" doesn't means it do not make sense to do it for other than direct revenues

random grove
#

Or every day new sponsors can buy their way into ads on the board

thick lava
#
  • Let's get a team quotation time/ressources + feedback impact on current delivery timeline
  • Evaluate ROI (?) / Cost avoidance (none) / Marketing edge (yup)
  • Decide if it's worth the delay on the rest
  • Go/NoGo
random grove
#

Yep i remember reading that, I ran out of characters and deleted a lot of my initial post but still tried adding that it all comes down to the teams thoughts and what’s possible for them

thick lava
#

just putting that there to imporve the initial message

Well rounded idea and each piece can be deployed at different time if needed

random grove
#

In the case of laws being stupid and paid entry not being viable, a roundabout way to make tournaments work without entry fees could be to give out tournament points every time you do a travel and you can use those to enter tournaments. Basically set a percentage of the revenue from people doing runs aside for these tournaments and so now you are doubly rewarded for capturing illuvials and gathering resources.

I don’t really like this idea a ton though so would be preferable for original idea to work.

stone field
#

great writing nitro

stone field
#

Ill suggest posting the link in general and arena for the community

thick lava
#

Can we also include some "tournament specific conditions"

Like

  • 2000 rating

  • air only
  • 3 illuvials max
  • <1000 rating
  • no armor/weapon
  • 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 / 128 / 256 / 512 / 1024 players

All that kind of things

random grove
#

That would fall under custom rulesets i think though clarifying the details eventually is a good idea.

thick lava
#

@cold eagle Do you've any tournament capablity plan in your roadmap / todo list ? Does this make any sense to pre-pone this pieces and maybe delay other to allow revenues?

cold eagle
#

I'll read the proposal and discussion one moment

cold eagle
#

Okay sorry so this is specific to an Automated Tournament System - No this isn't something we currently have planned.

thick lava
#

Yes it's related to this auto-tournament-kind-of-mechanics

cold eagle
#

I do really like the idea, if this proposal passes it's something that will need to be appropriately prioritized.

#

Cool 🙂

random grove
#

Somebody remind me now the process for moving this forward/ base requirements to get to drafting an iip

thick lava
#

I suppose the idea of @random grove and a few others is to automate this the way web2 came with this whole "user-generated-content" mindset

If your user generate content on your website, then you get more reach without doing anything, and more revenues.

Here is the same principle.

Auto-tournament capability allow people to expand the ecosystem by themsevles.

Again, that's how I see this.

jagged vine
random grove
#

I've been thinking too since smart contract for rewards will likely be lagging it would be good if it did pass to just launch the system as is without rewards at first and then add in entry fees once smart contract side was covered. let enough people experience it and test it before money is involved ofc. especially if we get those custom tournaments that say xborg can take advantage of to run their tournaments with

cold eagle
#

I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea, it's more a question of "Is this the right time to do it"

thick lava
random grove
# cold eagle I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea, it's more a question of "Is t...

Considering the teams burdens with setting up any and all tournaments rn, do you think there is enough value in creating a flexible tournament system to remove pressure from official tournaments setup that have to be manually set up every single time rn, wheras the effort could be put in upfront to automate the process and never have to deal with it again. I personally would really like to see a system like this up and running no later than several months after launch as a good way to bring extra life to the game and keep momentum rolling.

#

maybe i should ask too instead how much effort goes into setting up tournaments and distributing rewards, etc do you think?

cold eagle
#

Right now our (Studio) highest priorities are...

  • Account System (including IMX Passport inclusions)
  • Fuel Exchange
  • Overworld

While Neil remains focused on addressing bugs in Arena.

random grove
#

Gotchya, I mean, hypothetically if it got done anytime next year that would be awesome in my mind. I'd be happy to write up/work on a more proper mvp design too to get things clarified and set on exactly what we want this system to be

cold eagle
#

Yep, that sounds good.

I think first steps are getting the nessesary up-votes and taking this to IMC for prioritization.

random grove
#

though eventually it probably makes sense to leave it in the hands of the pros

cold eagle
#

Generally we want a loose brief to come from the DAO/IMC and for the Team to put forward the Solution, at which point IMC/DAO can provide feedback

random grove
#

Sounds good, still need more input for sure and upvotes so we'll see how things play out. Thanks Nick

stone field
random grove
#

I’d love to add to this question is registering illuvials a thought such that you can’t switch them between accounts per tournament or even ranked season. I imagine there are more sophisticated options in play so just adding this in case.

cold eagle
#

Everyone has equal opportunity

stone field
cold eagle
#

Discouraged but allowed is correct as of right now.

stone field
#

thank you nick

cloud briar
#

really excited for this proposal. This is a must have and the revenue created from this could be huge!!

night swift
#

I mean many would be aware I'm well across this. I just wish it were this simple. Even if this proposal were approved it would take ages to be properly implemented, not including the time taken for a proper spectator mode.

My focus would actually be directed at the legal side of this idea. Although not impossible there's a lot that needs to be done before this can be created by Illuvium themselves so that there's no issues in the future.

#

I guess legal is only a concern for entry fees. If that's included at a later stage it shouldn't be a problem I don't think. @visual zealot

thick lava
visual zealot
stone field
#

to be safe we have to consult with legal

#

as a non legal person, i imagine any type of "wager" can be easily contructed/called as "tournament"

#

what if there are only 2 people in the "tournament"?

jagged vine
#

The tournament doesnt fire until the queue is filled

stone field
#

technically we can set the min req as 2 players

jagged vine
#

Sure you can set it at whatever you want to set it at. Doesnt mean thats what a good idea is

stone field
#

hi @sour prism can you take a look at this?

thick lava
stone field
#

they have built BITB, so prob they have some knowledge about it.
but then if ILV provide the API to a certain party, it should be opened to other parties too

#

you tweeted Dabbz

#

maybe anyone should be able to host ILV wager?

thick lava
#

that's tournament fee, not wager, that's different, was going to draft it in there but again people are going to look at that and only to focus on 2% of it to say it's not doable, and/or because it's not doable in the next 3 weeks, vote no. 😂

stone field
thick lava
#

Anyway I'm not a tournament participants or organizer and did that in an hour, so I certainly miss a shitload of stuff there

thick lava
drifting flax
visual zealot
drifting flax
drifting flax
thick lava
random grove
# thick lava

This is pretty solid and way better than whatever I would make up for infographics.

#

I like that you already added the tournament mode handling time limits to get into your next match or your opponent automatically wins

#

Do we think spectating should purely have a delay while showing exactly what people are doing in planning or should it maybe do say a replay before a curtain close for example where you can check out match statistics before it transitions back into the start of the next battle say 5-10 seconds before it starts so you can quickly see changes to board before the battle starts again?

#

Also set view/views or free roaming instance just like you were playing the game? Or just mirror player screen so whatever they move camera to is what you see?

jagged vine
#

This doesnt need a special spectator mode at all

#

Eventually you should just be able to spectate anyone on your friends list

random grove
#

Also I think we’ll want the generated tournaments to be somewhat limited in selection at any given time. They could alternate between say double elimination and single elimination every other one for example though to keep focused and make sure the couple that are available any time fill up properly

random grove
# jagged vine This doesnt need a special spectator mode at all

Depending on how you look at it that’s not very different though when I consider you guys hosting a tournament of random people or illuvium itself, having some system to watch whatever match you want is important to not rely on people streaming themselves and constantly hopping between feeds.

Effectively however you want it to be, just a way for interested viewers and tournament organizers to view whatever match they want that’s ongoing.

#

It could totally be a general system that applies to matches in any mode, not just tournaments

jagged vine
#

So a system like this would not be for tournament organizers or planned out tournaments. This should just be a non stop firing queue whenever it fills up with the designated amount of people.

Tournament organizers can run their own events

#

Basically just copy what Magic Online did.

random grove
#

If you think so that’s totally fine, I just see value in simplifying the means to get matches on streams

jagged vine
#

Friends list spectator mode

random grove
#

That’s a lot of adding and removing friends but if people are fine with it I don’t have any qualms. I don’t see myself running tournaments after all :p

random grove
jagged vine
#

There is certainly value there but I don't see that as big of a priority as just having a set game mode with automatic tournaments firing non stop.

random grove
#

Ok, and I get with that too. This is definitely a multi stage proposal that would be implemented in phases most likely. The base starting point ofc being those non stop system managed tournaments, eventually followed by custom mode.

jagged vine
#

Yah exactly. Start with a base layer with lower dev work and increase the options as demand increases

random grove
#

Or if it doesn’t pan out then it might stop after the first step

#

It depends on how many stages there are but i would consider general milestones like players in the ecosystem, total players that have entered into said tournaments etc as requirements to be met before going onto the next step. We need a large enough playerbase first and foremost to make sure these tournaments keep filling after all.

thick lava
jagged vine
random grove
#

If the playerbase is big enough I’m all for it though honestly I really like unlimited queue with set times more so you don’t have any real chance to be stuck waiting for an obscure amount of time til the tournament starts.

#

And then let the system divy players up into separate tournament brackets

thick lava
#

I think spectator mode isn’t complicate except if we want to make it so.

In theory, each fight is a small flat file of data, replay will always be the same. It’s been said working like that. (One of the usage is repay those millions of time in minutes to automate balancing) That’s what I have in mind for spectator mode, just relay the file. Means the fight has finished already when relaying, or you’re playing and watching a round that had ended

thick lava
#

Again, I’ve never been in a tournament, never fired the PvP. So I can only do with what I saw you guy talking about 🙂

random grove
#

Your graphics are great and now I don’t have to try making any :p

jagged vine
thick lava
thick lava
random grove
#

I’m being nit picky yet assuming the playerbase is large enough and interest fervent enough, having 8 man tournament limit it’s going to constantly reset and people might get frustrated trying to enter when you could start with something more flexible though slightly more complicated to make.

So thought just came to mind cap tournaments at 8 players with unlimited queue and it fires off the next batch of tournaments as soon as say every 5 minutes pass or even every minute though if for some reason there aren’t 8 players yet it just waits another minute to try starting again. Now you don’t ever have to worry about the tournament being filled already and refresh refresh refresh til you happen to click before 8 other people do

#

We have to remember we’ll be months into launch before this system comes to fruition so we could have a lot of players by then

jagged vine
random grove
thick lava
#

The tech won’t change much that you’ve 1 or 20 automated and choose 1 or 3 duplicate at all time.

Once the tech is there to handle the tournament data. What you guys are talking about here is a simple list of parameters for each tournaments.

random grove
#

Btw, just saw scrolling through iips that spectator mode iip is already a thing and Nick already confirmed such systems are planned for eventual development. So in that case it could be added as more of an aside to this proposal if much at all

random grove
thick lava
#

Multiple

#

Multiple type, and I like the idea of having 3 duplicate.

Only reference I can relate to is StarCraft broodwar console for match i was using a long time ago though 🤪

random grove
#

Would it be for the purpose of being able to more easily choose who you play against? Like we don’t have custom matches yet for example but you, sjud, and I want to face off in a tournament so we find the same lobby with enough empty spots and all go in, whereas with unlimited queue and random bracket sorting we could never guarantee being in the same tournament until custom was added. @thick lava

#

ofc, it's very unlikely I will ever intentionally let myself lose money to SJUD

stone field
#

unless there is a side wager

random grove
#

I don't think I'll bet on SJUD losing either :p too risky

random grove
hoary vigil
#

Hey Nitro,
I think this all looks awesome, I read your comment about leaving for the pros, your idea is solid and has support. Perhaps you could work with a couple of the people in here to get the IIP done.
Disregard if you have done so already.
😊

random grove
#

Definitely will get done by myself and or others sooner or later. Just taking the day off work today and don’t want to spend it all on doing work :p

#

I also want to think about the phases aspect and intricacies a bit more

hoary vigil
#

Sweet ❤️

#

It seems like you have time.

sour prism
# stone field hi <@323556951612981250> can you take a look at this?

Happy to weigh in. I think the idea is solid. My primary questions are on timing and execution. The number one biggest risk to a platform like this is matchmaking - both in getting enough players available at a given time, determining the matchmaking algorithm, and managing some sort of elo structure to enable player to feel like they are competing against players of roughly equal abilities.

The second is of course on the cost and timing of when this should become a priority. The ILV API needs some enhancements to make this work so even if the entire solution was built by one (or more) third parties it would still require some team resources. I don't think that's insurmountable but we really need the team focused on the critical work now to get open beta out. Each detour we take increases risk of launch delays.

I do prefer the economic model here as it feels less like we're subsidizing people to play Arena compared to some other proposals on leaderboards/rewards/etc., which should always be avoided as long-term structures. Short-term marketing boosts make sense but we have to avoid going overboard with those.

That said, I'm happy to have dialogue with the team in an upcoming council meeting.

random grove
#

Waiting on my game to update so decided to start writing things up based on @jagged vine thoughts for the initial system and expanding through multiple phases after that. Will read through discussion again later to add other particulars i forgot about and go from there til I have something worth reviewing. Might be a bit beefier than avg proposals though we’ll see.

random grove
# sour prism Happy to weigh in. I think the idea is solid. My primary questions are on timi...

Quick note is Nick already said this wouldn’t even have a chance of starting development effectively til after launch. Though with the phases vs batch proposal the first iteration could be launched fairly quickly, especially without paid entry fee aspect since no matter what smart contract reviews will lag everything else as I assume that we’d be using one for taking fees and distributing rewards.

Disregard if you and Jag are on something completely different :p

random grove
#

Anyone got a good idea for best ways to handle entry fees being paid? Should it be right away upfront entering the queue? Then if you leave before it starts just refund? Otw leave particulars to the team?

#

@cold eagle Thoughts on how payment and refunds would be best handled?

#

As far as smart contract goes if that were the best or only route available

random grove
#

got the phases blobbed out more or less so will revisit tomorrow or over the next couple days and then try to work with any interested in making a proper proposal out of it. For now, time to game

cloud briar
#

what about team locks? like people can only bring in 3 teams (whatever amount). overwise with spectator mode. People can just bring in as many teams as they want and just counter your team perfectly. I see it being an issue but @jagged vine can probably speak to this better. Is this an issue?

jagged vine
random grove
#

I'll add this to the blob real quick

jagged vine
random grove
#

Since it's at least potentially for money, the skill level will typically be high to the point that ELO would be a null factor in most cases regardless imo. I suspect most players will at least be good enough to have a chance of winning regardless of who they go up against. If not they are probably just doing the tournament experience for fun in free mode or taking a chance on getting somewhat lucky in a low fee tournament.

#

@jagged vine No extra slots (extra 5-10 illuvials/augments) to switch up strategies between rounds correct? Just your deck as it is no changes.

jagged vine
#

Single elim/double elim, sideboard/no sideboard, 1 deck/multiple deck, bans/no bans, custom rules like only stage 1s, etc
There are just so many options

random grove
#

Ok, it's just a blob like i said for now but added that just bring your 1 deck for the initial version and in later phases with larger tournaments more decks will be allowed to handle higher odds of incompatible decks and people stream sniping etc

#

Can keep working on it over the next days or even weeks since this idea is plenty far on from team starting development

#

not that much changes if everyone only has one deck to start. sniping would be relatively mute in effectiveness

jagged vine
random grove
#

all the customization stuff too is a later phase addition to custom mode, simple at first and after the base functions are well developed and battle tested pretty much leave it up to community feedback on what features to add

thick lava
#

Using @indigo tulip feedback + the idea of 3 identical tournaments at all times + making clear that we need to design the list of tournaments that should be there when this goes live

indigo tulip
#

I support this idea.
Thank you @thick lava for putting all this work for the DAO as always and @random grove for the proposal ❤️

stone field
#

wow great write up nitro.
anyone can sponsor a proposal. do you think you want to invite team members to discuss this further?

#

one thing that def need to be cleared is the paid entry fee

#

the council can discuss this topic in our next meeting if you'd like

random grove
#

That’d be great @stone field Hopefully by the weekend we’ll have everything tidied up

thick lava
#

Looking good, use my screenshoot to support your document. If always good to have visual to accompany a wall of text ahahhah

#

(But I’ll read in more details after work)

random grove
#

Yea definitely we’ll be referring to your graphics. Should I straight inject them into the phases discussion or add at the end as a reference you think?

thick lava
stone field
drifting flax
#

I appreciate this topic, but even if approved this is under priority over fixing the game bugs, which would frustrate participants of this mode.

indigo tulip
#

i'd agree with this. We could also very easily imagine that those could be bought with sILV2 as one of the options so that we burn it a bit more quickly as it helps another concern going in the DAO recently.

random grove
random grove
thick lava
#

That’s the sad things, can’t be done quickly. This would be driving activities, people, rewards, attention, etc.

#

@indigo tulip @jagged vine

I don’t want to mix topics but is there any open discussion about having a « fix deck » (like today) VS « deck to draw from » (like magic, etc.) ?

indigo tulip
drifting flax
indigo tulip
drifting flax
#

so that would be the first time silv2 is used but not burned

indigo tulip
random grove
#

I may be confused, I honestly thought the process was more pay with silv2, burn say 20% of entry fees and get more silv2 for winning. I don’t see much reason for the DAO to pay out extra funds to silv2 users. May just be reading it wrong but that’s the implementation i have in mind. Again though several months into launch silv2 should be as good as eliminated or the game probably isn’t doing too hot

random grove
jagged vine
#

Been moving into a new house so havnt been up to date on this. will try and look over it soon @random grove

random grove
#

No worries and thanks @jagged vine

#

working on/ finishing up a flow diagram to potentially make it easier to understand for those who don't like the text blob and then figuring how i want to incorporate Lelahels graphics... May just put them at the end as a visual reference so I don't hurt my head too much more.

stone field
#

Thanks so much for the draft

#

this is really great given the time to prepare it. ru a dev yourself?

random grove
deep lance
#

Great idea, same question others have voiced in regard to timing, but I don't think it's a bad idea to get it in the development queue.

For reference, Rocket League has a really good in-game tournament system that we should consider taking a closer look at.

random grove
#

Yea, as mentioned it isn’t going to start development until after game launch if this system gets to production so it’s not a priority atm.

deep lance
#

Great idea imo, nice one nitro!

livid patio
#

So, this suggestion is to introduce the same thing as MTGO standard tournaments?

Sounds good to me.

random grove
#

Never played magic online tbh so idk but effectively I’m sure it is. Start basic and eventually get all tournaments for illuvium running through it. Less work in the end that way.

jagged vine
random grove
#

@stone field When is the next council meeting exactly? As far as i can tell there doesn't seem to be any more discussion being produced or complaints about the current draft so aside from maybe cleaning up grammar and redundancy or such, it would be fine to push to an official iip to get voted on as is after the next council meeting? And it's not like changes can't or won't be made by the team when they would eventually get to it say in the next 6 months.

stone field
#

FR sent @random grove

teal kite
#

We NEED this. There's many Web2 games that offer this awesome UI and even some Web3 games have this.

random grove
#

I rewrote aspects to make it apparent and flexible in regards to paid entry possibly being held up by legal issues so it can be delayed, or dropped as necessary

sour prism
#

Thank you kindly nitro. I think it's a really good idea. I've been in discussions with IMC on the risk of legal and/or potential ESRB concerns (see Gods Unchained as an example of Epic Game Store removal). I suspect if we have an option for KYC of players who are participating in these tournaments those concerns are manageable. There may be other workarounds or risk mitigation factors that are options. Great idea and I like a lot of the execution components - we just shouldn't rush into it without some of the due diligence being done first. If we steer cautiously I expect we can get 90%+ of the value and eliminate most of the downside risk factors.

random grove
#

Thanks for the response. Yea if kyc/locking the features behind age is enough that would be excellent. Otw we may need to do what some games do and create a separate adult/18+ version that may not be listed on Epic or other large platforms. Additionally I have thoughts on incentivizing overworld travels with these tournament tickets taking a small part of the revenue and pooling it towards that to create an engaging and rewarding feedback loop that avoids an "official' paid entry mode and might help with legality on that side. Effectively though, I'm fine waiting until clarifications come to pass or pushing as is and everyone just understanding that if and when the system gets developed it may or may not include the monetary aspect immediately if ever. Might lose some momentum with community backing side of things though everyone seems to want this so when it goes to an iip I doubt there would be issues getting necessary upvotes at the time to get it on the table if we wait. @sour prism

#

I've only done some light browsing though it seems like in the US for example states aren't as concerned with small size tournaments. $2500 popped up a lot so that may be key to easing our troubles going forward in regards to needing licenses. Will leave it to legal experts to clarify though.

stone field
#

we'll schedule it for this week meeting

indigo tulip
# stone field

question does this kind of idea really require to use governance though? shouldn't we let the team express themselves just something like:
"oh yeah cool idea and we see there's a lot of demand for it, we'll do it within (insert time frame)"

As we can see some ideas here have just no downvotes and the community is unanimous on it so why would this require governance and extra paperwork?

stark dust
#

@tender lake has somethings he wanted to say. But could not yet… so here it is.

The reason why I felt like responding is because I operate in a system like this on a daily basis as an online pokerpro.

I’ve read your proposal and most of the thread and genuinely think this is one of the most important things that Illuvium needs - outside of the Overworld up and running.

There are two points that should be touched upon in an official proposal (at least from my perspective). 1. Buy-in amount 2. Rake (Illuvium share or fee)

The buy-in amount is important because you want to attract all players. Please don’t stop at 25$ buy-ins. People here are often scared of pushing web2 people away. Well I am one and telling you, you will reel people in if you give people the opportunity to bet bigger. If it’s not officially possible because of gambling laws, then get a legal team to set this up. I mean it. If you’re professing to be a crypto esports gaming company…then this is what you need. Cash cow which will make Revdis off the charts.

Imagine every Sunday a guaranteed 1 million pricepool tournament with a buy-in of 100$. If you have 10k players that are willing to spend on nft’s in beyond, why wouldn’t they spend on a ticket to play the tournament? It is good for the pros, good for the goldseekers and everyone wanting to have fun at the end of the week. In the beginning, sure you’ll have an overlay. But as word starts to spread around…the guaranteed pricepool of choice will get filled up because everyone wants a share of that weekly overlay on the guarantee. To me this is what “fight for Eth” sounds like. This would be an insanely valuable reason to go into Overworld to catch Illuvials. A reason for TL to really get at it instead of calling it an ad in their twitch.

For all tiers:
1$ buy-in 10k guarantee
10$ buy-in 100k guarantee
100$ buy-in 1M (first price 100k+)

As it grows you could do a full fledged every day schedule like a Ggpoker or Pokerstars

#

The rake then should be an amount in which you can breed the maximum amount of pros, earning a living wage. If I have an edge of 10% over the field and have to pay 10% in rake, that means it’s not sustainable(duh). This is a battle that has been fought by poker players in online poker since the beginning of days. If you take 10% out of a pool with a big luckfactor, the odds of winning in the long term become hard. If enough people have a let’s say 20% edge over the field that might be fine…but if the luck/skillratio is off then asking for the wrong rake would be bad and lead people to play somewhere else. In poker most places have a 5% + cap at the size of the pot. In small buyin tournaments it can go up to 10%. But ideally to be truly revolutionary you should go for something like 3%. Guaranteed beatable rake + no company can do it better. Let alone with revdis. Illuvium crypto gaming monopoly. Just like pokerstars became a monopoly a long time ago (and lost it because of bad marketing)

Anyways…im probably drifting of too far. Superexcited for this implementation to be put on in whatever form. Go Illuvium!

thick lava
#

The kind of extremely valuable comment @tender lake

stone field
#

but you are right, ICC role is to facilitate the community proposals

#

then we have to present it to the IMC

random grove
#

This reads great to me. By no means is $25 the limit, just a reference of potential buy in prices. Really appreciate seeing a pros perspective on this and hope the team takes this into consideration for setting up these bigger weekly or daily tournaments. I didn't know personally exactly what a good rake would be so iirc just broadly put it in the range of 2-10% as a reference though as long as any licensing fees etc. don't add up to substantial amounts that necessitate higher rakes I can totally get on board with something as low as 2-3%, especially if volume is high enough then it will rake in the big revenue regardless. @tender lake Thank you very much for adding your insight.

random grove
pine kettle
# thick lava You want the Liz to build that ? 😛

I mean in all seriousness it's not a bad idea for a third party to build a tournament system. We don't have the bandwidth to automate it right now, the third-party that does would get a ton of Illuvium traffic. Seems like a win-win

pine kettle
pale sphinx
#

Is there any other game that use tournament fee?

random grove
# pine kettle Absolutely, I agree we need to build tournament functionality I'm just scared of...

Hypothetically, do you feel like you’ll be more confident in building it about half a year out from now or are you thinking it’s a year plus out of successfully running the game before it would move to in house development?

No one is expecting it right away by any means and the proposal is designed with the intention of starting simple and building as slowly as necessary. Though I imagine if the response from player-base was positive enough it would be accelerated and grow into a primary attraction and long term revenue source for the DAO. I also don’t mind a closely tied third party like Lizards building something in meantime. My thoughts are just getting everything in house in the end yields the most positive results and reduces risk factors the best, at minimum for the participants.

#

Is the game so to speak open enough for a properly automated third party system to be done or how would that work out exactly? Basically can the third party access and interact with data from the game well enough to implement what’s been discussed here?

random grove
# pale sphinx Is there any other game that use tournament fee?

Gods Unchained made a paid mode where you get x number of games you can lose and as long as you keep winning you can get various rewards until you lose x times. Similar and actually i think why they got moved to adult only since I don’t think they locked it behind age verification /kyc.

#

And ofc poker in general along with most sporting, card game, and other event functions use entry fees to create tournaments and such that pay out.

thick lava
#

@cold eagle

Would you be able to give a ball park effort estimate for the different teams on building this ?

This is all personnal and I've been very vocal and certainly pissed many of you off but I mean... I'd prefer to have a full fledge capability stream up and running. Here you only build this and it activate a flow of revenues and marketing. It can even be simplified to go faster (ex: you don't need to automated tournament as people can constantly create them, etc.). And it activate not a small capability, but the e-sport and tournament fee type.
While as of now the focus is on activating the whole overworld game and it'll take another 3-4-5 months, maybe. If overworld have to be delayed by 1-2 months, to activate this in January, becaue all focus was put on it, and even if Overwrold is all I want, I'm of opinion have to be discussed with the council and team to choose the best angle.

It's a real strategy decision, that can shape the future of the project in 2024.

What do you think?

random grove
#

Not to say that minds can’t be changed and I agree it’s a high value system, I don’t think we’ll see overworld delayed for it or Nick changing his previous response about it not getting started until some time after launch. Also to a degree at least I don’t see it being the best use of time until we have a good sized player base. Not to say this couldn’t be the deciding factor in drawing players in as Bartolomeus mentioned it very well could. Regardless it’s not our game explicitly and I don’t want to force the team into feeling like they’re working for a corporate overlord demanding this and that and putting unreasonable deadlines into play.

I’d rather see overworld fully developed and flourishing myself (plz story/campaign mode be inbound) and wait for legal clarity as well for figuring best approach to this system.

thick lava
#

That's why I want them to discuss, not us, lol

random grove
#

Gotchya, Should come up with the council meeting coming up I think at the very least

random grove
# thick lava <@102253344755560448> Would you be able to give a ball park effort estimate fo...

Thinking on it while the initial point of the proposal was to have tournaments automatically running at all times, it technically makes sense to start even more foundational and just get the tournament mode made and let people open them themselves/the DAO if bandwidth is an issue(not sure if its the automation part or the running the whole thing as one functioning event part), then automated, and then player, guild, etc. customizable. And entry fees could come anywhere in that process once legal is taken care of.

stone field
thin jolt
# night swift I mean many would be aware I'm well across this. I just wish it were this simple...

That was my thinking when I read this - significant dev time and legal concerns.

Pretty sure if doing entry fees with illuvium taking a rake that kyc will be required and numerous other legal considerations. Ani made a good point about God's Unchained getting removed from Epic store because of their paid tournament feature.

Given that there are various platforms and tournament providers for web3 games, I do wonder where this would fit in terms of priority even if approved, given that the game is still lacking other social features and critical elements that the team has planned in.

It's a cool idea and it seems more feasible to extrapolate part of the concept, like the lobbies for making custom rulesets or even taking a hearthstone-like approach with pre-defined rulesets.

This would require a lot less dev work and allow for a diversity of tournament formats offered by third parties.

I believe that a Spectator mode is already planned in the product scope, but again I'd imagine after other more critical features are delivered.

cold eagle
#

Yes I'm in agreement with Lucius here.

I love the idea and I love the work everyones put into ideating what this could look like.

It absolutely can and should be implemented when bandwidth allows, but right now our priority is to stay laser focused on delivering Open Beta.

Even me running around trying to pull together estimates means sitting down with each of the Team Leads, detailing the product requirements to the extent they're happy to share a rough initial estimate.

#

My feeling is that this should be a discussion point for the IMC to prioritize against existing deliverables prior to me pulling together estimates.

hard mountain
cold eagle
#

That could be an interesting way to side-step any legal issues (big assumption ha)

hard mountain
stone field
stone field
livid patio
#

You could use any in-game currency for the entry fee.

Maybe we should just use Overworld rocks.
The art team would be happy. 😁

stone field
#

Entry Fee Tournaments, where participants must put cash down to participate and have the chance to win a cash prize, are considered to have a degree of risk and may be regarded as a form of gambling.

#

@random grove

livid patio
tranquil flint
livid patio
random grove
#

Honestly, paying to go into the overworld with a chance of capturing illuvials is basically gambling by definition so one day we might need the license anyways if scrutiny hits hard.

stone field
livid patio
# stone field it is up to the DAO to assume the risk or not. just letting you know the risk th...

Yes although in reality this is not likely to be a risk that the IMC chooses to accept.

Since we are explaining our posts to each other, I guess I should say that I was just letting you know that there are similar options that retain an element of gambling, but which are lower risk than outright using a crypto currency like ETH.

As noted above, even the reduced risk option is unlikely to be done. I believe MTGO is banned in some US states, and even using fuel would be considered closer to gambling than what MTGO does.

Not legal advice. 😏

stone field
livid patio
livid patio
stone field
#

we can send legal the mechanism document, but it seems nitro deleted it from this thread