Forums » Suggestions
Allow for a delayed start /duel with universe wide betting
As the subject line says give us a /duel challengedelayed nick option that will allow pilots universe wide to bet on the outcome. Have the duel delayed by 2 minutes with a countdown.
"Hey, Stinkpalm. Lose this duel and ill split half my winnings with you"
-1
-1
And? That happens in in RL as well.
Perhaps the duelists should receive a small cut of the betting proceeds as well, to incentivize us to duel in the first place.
Thats a good idea Pizza, and I agree.
+1 excellent suggestion to increase interaction across all players.
If implemented, abuse would happen. While we can't prevent it, we could mitigate it. What steps could we take for this?
Limit frequency of betting for participants (including alts?) and/or betters?
Limit bet amounts?
Set criteria for what constitutes a real fight (time, damage, etc.)?
Limit frequency of betting for participants (including alts?) and/or betters?
Limit bet amounts?
Set criteria for what constitutes a real fight (time, damage, etc.)?
Fixing duels is easy to make unprofitable. Just require the total amount bet on each side to match (any excess when bets are closed would be refunded), give 1/3 of the pot to the winner of the duel, and split the other 2/3 among the winning bettors based on the percentage they contributed.
So for example, let's say Alice and Bob are arranging a duel. Fifteen people bet on Alice, for a total of 15 M, but Eve is the only one who bets on Bob and she only ponies up 1.5 M. Everybody who bet on Alice would get 9/10 of their bets refunded, leaving a total of 3 M in the pool. The winner of the match will therefor get a prize of 1 M, and the remaining 2 M will be split proportionally among those who bet for them.
Eve could offer to split her winnings with Alice if she throws the match. But Alice isn't an idiot, so she realizes that Eve needs to recoup her original 1.5 M to break even, so that only leaves a maximum of 0.5 M for Eve to pay her with. If Alice simply wins the fight, she would instead have a solid 1 M. Throwing the match doesn't make sense unless she's unlikely to win, and if she's unlikely to win, Eve wouldn't need her to throw it in the first place.
This method does require that the total bet on each side be balanced, however. If it's possible for Eve to only put her 1.5 M on Bob while the others put a total of 15 M on Alice, then Eve's winnings would be 11 M. After subtracting her original 1.5 M bet and the 5.5 M that Alice would have won if she hadn't thrown the match, that leaves 4 M for them to split as profit.
So for example, let's say Alice and Bob are arranging a duel. Fifteen people bet on Alice, for a total of 15 M, but Eve is the only one who bets on Bob and she only ponies up 1.5 M. Everybody who bet on Alice would get 9/10 of their bets refunded, leaving a total of 3 M in the pool. The winner of the match will therefor get a prize of 1 M, and the remaining 2 M will be split proportionally among those who bet for them.
Eve could offer to split her winnings with Alice if she throws the match. But Alice isn't an idiot, so she realizes that Eve needs to recoup her original 1.5 M to break even, so that only leaves a maximum of 0.5 M for Eve to pay her with. If Alice simply wins the fight, she would instead have a solid 1 M. Throwing the match doesn't make sense unless she's unlikely to win, and if she's unlikely to win, Eve wouldn't need her to throw it in the first place.
This method does require that the total bet on each side be balanced, however. If it's possible for Eve to only put her 1.5 M on Bob while the others put a total of 15 M on Alice, then Eve's winnings would be 11 M. After subtracting her original 1.5 M bet and the 5.5 M that Alice would have won if she hadn't thrown the match, that leaves 4 M for them to split as profit.
We cant have anything that remotely resembles gambling, betting, or anything of the sort in fear we lose E for everyone.
VO isn't rated E in the first place. It's T for Teen.
It's actually more nuanced than that, because ESRB is not the only standard anymore. Many governments have chosen to create their own ratings systems, like Korea (GRAC), Japan (CERO), Europe (PEGI) and so on.
They each have different parameters, and some of them rate gambling much more intensively than others.
There's also a big controversy right now with the question of whether Loot Crates are "Gambling", that has the the US Federal Trade Commission now investigating and Electronic Arts engaging in painful discussions with the UK Parliament.
There are various arguments to be made about how, in our case, it's betting on a game of skill and not a game of chance, which differs from a regulatory standpoint (in some places). But being an international game makes this all a giant minefield of "ugh".
I've never been specifically opposed to the notion of people "betting" gameplay-derived pretend-currency (credits, not crystals) on the outcomes of duels, and the like. But we'd need to be pretty cautious about it.
They each have different parameters, and some of them rate gambling much more intensively than others.
There's also a big controversy right now with the question of whether Loot Crates are "Gambling", that has the the US Federal Trade Commission now investigating and Electronic Arts engaging in painful discussions with the UK Parliament.
There are various arguments to be made about how, in our case, it's betting on a game of skill and not a game of chance, which differs from a regulatory standpoint (in some places). But being an international game makes this all a giant minefield of "ugh".
I've never been specifically opposed to the notion of people "betting" gameplay-derived pretend-currency (credits, not crystals) on the outcomes of duels, and the like. But we'd need to be pretty cautious about it.
I like Rin's proposed system. Seriously +1 to any good incentive to duel.