Do you know matchmaking where different entry fee players get matched?
March 27, 2024 10:33 PM Subscribe
Do you know any instances where two people of varying price/entry fees are matched together in any other implementation (game/real world/match.com etc)? Something like I am staking / risking something different than you, but we are being matched. Or I am entering a tournament/battle/game/system at a different price/risk & you/others are doing it at different price/risk. The outcome can be different (dependent on my input) or same (independent of input).
It would really help if someone know of any instances of these.
"Join US Chess" ranges from $18 per year to a flat $3,000 for lifetime membership. Benefits of membership include: Play official US Chess rated games, online or in person, for national and local events.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:44 PM on March 27
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:44 PM on March 27
Best answer: One example is free to play online games that have (1) dual in-game currencies, (2) player vs player matches with a fully automated match making system that attempts to match similarly ranked players against each other, and (3) special restricted player vs player match events that require an entry fee paid using in game currencies.
A typical way to monetize a free to play game is to create one kind of currency that you earn by "grinding" (playing less desirable parts of the game for many hours) and another kind of currency that you can earn by paying the developer real world currency. Then you restrict access to some desirable part of the game (e.g. a player vs player ladder with special status or content or something) and charge an entry fee with prices in both kinds of currencies. A way to make this perceived as fair by all players is that there should be no benefit to the player in the match based on which currency they used to enter the match.
Free to play players who are time rich but do not have real world money to spend can "grind" to earn enough in-game currency to pay the entry fee by playing less desirable parts of the game for hours and hours. Players who have real world cash to burn and are time poor can just buy entry by paying the developers money in exchange for special entry fee tokens.
Specific example: magic the gathering arena -- it has the dual currency system and participation in special "draft" & "sealed" PvP matches (where in addition to playing matches you end up with additional in game assets of cards added to your virtual card collection) with an automated rank-based match-maker, where participation is gated by an entry fee.
Another interesting example with multiple in game currencies is EVE online. It doesn't have 1v1 matches or matchmaking -- EVE is a simulation of a sci-fi universe where players manage corporations using space-Excel and nominally pilot spaceships, but you could regard the game as a single never-ending free-form match in which every player is "matched" into the same never-ending match with all the other players! Each player needs to have an active monthly subscription to access the game's full content. The game universe models this subscription as having a "pilot license" -- you can either buy a monthly pilot license with a special currency only purchasable by real world money, or you can buy it with using the game universe's money. The exchange rate for monthly pilot licenses from real world money is pegged, while the exchange rate for monthly pilot licenses using in game money is set by the game's economy -- players of the game can buy and sell in-game pilot license items using in game currency, using various in game stock exchanges.
In EVE, highly skilled or long-tenured players can amass large amounts of in-game assets and investments that may regularly generate large amounts of in-game currency and allow them to purchase their monthly subscription "pilot license" without forking out any real world money. In game assets can also be destroyed/stolen/embezzled by other places engaging in piracy, warfare, espionage, pyramid schemes, within the simulated universe.
posted by are-coral-made at 12:50 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
A typical way to monetize a free to play game is to create one kind of currency that you earn by "grinding" (playing less desirable parts of the game for many hours) and another kind of currency that you can earn by paying the developer real world currency. Then you restrict access to some desirable part of the game (e.g. a player vs player ladder with special status or content or something) and charge an entry fee with prices in both kinds of currencies. A way to make this perceived as fair by all players is that there should be no benefit to the player in the match based on which currency they used to enter the match.
Free to play players who are time rich but do not have real world money to spend can "grind" to earn enough in-game currency to pay the entry fee by playing less desirable parts of the game for hours and hours. Players who have real world cash to burn and are time poor can just buy entry by paying the developers money in exchange for special entry fee tokens.
Specific example: magic the gathering arena -- it has the dual currency system and participation in special "draft" & "sealed" PvP matches (where in addition to playing matches you end up with additional in game assets of cards added to your virtual card collection) with an automated rank-based match-maker, where participation is gated by an entry fee.
Another interesting example with multiple in game currencies is EVE online. It doesn't have 1v1 matches or matchmaking -- EVE is a simulation of a sci-fi universe where players manage corporations using space-Excel and nominally pilot spaceships, but you could regard the game as a single never-ending free-form match in which every player is "matched" into the same never-ending match with all the other players! Each player needs to have an active monthly subscription to access the game's full content. The game universe models this subscription as having a "pilot license" -- you can either buy a monthly pilot license with a special currency only purchasable by real world money, or you can buy it with using the game universe's money. The exchange rate for monthly pilot licenses from real world money is pegged, while the exchange rate for monthly pilot licenses using in game money is set by the game's economy -- players of the game can buy and sell in-game pilot license items using in game currency, using various in game stock exchanges.
In EVE, highly skilled or long-tenured players can amass large amounts of in-game assets and investments that may regularly generate large amounts of in-game currency and allow them to purchase their monthly subscription "pilot license" without forking out any real world money. In game assets can also be destroyed/stolen/embezzled by other places engaging in piracy, warfare, espionage, pyramid schemes, within the simulated universe.
posted by are-coral-made at 12:50 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Basically all ELO based competitive games do it this way.
What you are "staking" - or what the "price" is - is your gain/loss in matchmaking rating. For players of the same skill level, say you're both 1500 rating, you both stand to gain 15 points on a win or a loss, so afterwards one player ends up at 1485 and another at 1515. The "stake" is 15 points.
But if players are different skill levels to begin with, then the "stake" is different. Say a 1700 player plays against a 1500 player, with the higher ranked player much more favored to win. If the 1700 player wins, they would gain very little rating since they were expected to win anyway, so they would end up at something like 1705 and 1495, for a 5 point swing each way.
However if the 1700 player lost, then it is considered an upset, and the ELO system goes, maybe the 1700 is much worse than we thought, or the 1500 player is much better than we thought. So it could end up at 1660 and 1540, for a 40 point swing each way.
In this system players don't necessarily mind playing against players of different skill, because the risks and rewards are scaled commensurately. I welcome the chance to play against someone stronger, even though it is likely I will lose.
posted by xdvesper at 1:00 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
What you are "staking" - or what the "price" is - is your gain/loss in matchmaking rating. For players of the same skill level, say you're both 1500 rating, you both stand to gain 15 points on a win or a loss, so afterwards one player ends up at 1485 and another at 1515. The "stake" is 15 points.
But if players are different skill levels to begin with, then the "stake" is different. Say a 1700 player plays against a 1500 player, with the higher ranked player much more favored to win. If the 1700 player wins, they would gain very little rating since they were expected to win anyway, so they would end up at something like 1705 and 1495, for a 5 point swing each way.
However if the 1700 player lost, then it is considered an upset, and the ELO system goes, maybe the 1700 is much worse than we thought, or the 1500 player is much better than we thought. So it could end up at 1660 and 1540, for a 40 point swing each way.
In this system players don't necessarily mind playing against players of different skill, because the risks and rewards are scaled commensurately. I welcome the chance to play against someone stronger, even though it is likely I will lose.
posted by xdvesper at 1:00 AM on March 28 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: @are-coral-made : The point you are making is that grinding and buying are two different "costs" associated for the entry fee OR is it that some of these games actually have two different entry fees (5 playcoins vs 1 boughtcoin) for the same matched game? Or is it both?
@xdvesper : I like the staking point where maybe it is not currency, but score/elo is being staked and that is different in a game for both players. But here, the risk/reward is the same. In the process I am looking at, I am actually staking two different currencies for both players where the loss/win is borne by the house to each player. The players though, play against each other. So in essence, the winning condition depends on the PVP, but the reward depends on the bet/stake/price against the house/app/game.
Maybe there is also an example for that?
Meanwhile, thank you so much for your responses. Really appreciate it!
posted by foraman at 4:40 AM on April 1
@xdvesper : I like the staking point where maybe it is not currency, but score/elo is being staked and that is different in a game for both players. But here, the risk/reward is the same. In the process I am looking at, I am actually staking two different currencies for both players where the loss/win is borne by the house to each player. The players though, play against each other. So in essence, the winning condition depends on the PVP, but the reward depends on the bet/stake/price against the house/app/game.
Maybe there is also an example for that?
Meanwhile, thank you so much for your responses. Really appreciate it!
posted by foraman at 4:40 AM on April 1
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Financial markets abound in this sort of thing too. Especially the options market, where the instruments purposely have asymmetric payoffs.
These are also examples of two-sided marketplaces where there's a market-maker coordinating activity and the two "sides" of a transaction never interact.
posted by mullacc at 11:27 PM on March 27 [1 favorite]