Ive been saying this for years now. To keep the Jr/Sr age divisions from getting smaller and smaller the age ranges need to change. Since everyone knows to become a Professor you need to be 18 yrs old lets follow this schedule:
GrandMasters 30+
Masters 18-29
Seniors 13-17
Juniors 12 and under
Right now having a 15 yr old battle a 40+ Masters is just ridiculous. You know whos gonna win? the 15 yr old!! Pokemon can take away all the Travel support for the GrandMasters. Remember this is just a rough idea but these age divisions will help allow Travel Awards to the older teenagers/college age students while also allowing Jr/Srs to stay in their respective age divisions longer thus promoting larger Jr/Sr age divisions.
Did anyone actually say that? Looking through the past posts, most people want equality... not inequality. I can't see anyone saying that masters deserves more than J/S...For those who believe the Jr/Sr divisions should have no prizes and you should get them all (You know who you are), or have a bigger sense of entitlement then globe itself, I could not wish to see you move out of Pokemon more.
The bottom line-Yes, it's a questionable move. No, they didn't decrease prizes, and the more I think about it, the more it saddens me that a good number of people are too caught up on themselves to be happy they increased prizes SOMEWHERE.
"Congrats on winning the raffle's grand prize of 1,00 dollars. Oh, I'm sorry, you have brown hair? The max prize for people with brown hair is actually only 400 dollars. Here you go, grand prize, 400 bucks."
You honestly see no problem with that?
Better analogy would be three different raffles, free to enter, divided up among ages. Prize support is different among those ages, because 5x as many people enter the oldest raffle. Do you have a problem that the two smaller raffles get more prizes than you?
I've said this before, and it shows now more than ever. TPCi can do pretty much whatever they want when it comes to prize support and other decisions. Masters will still play because they love the game, while most of the revenue will come from kids who have no grasp on the stuff being discussed in this thread. It's honestly the sweetest deal ever for them. If I've learned anything about Organized Play, this is it.
Let me defend TPCi a bit. We've seen decisions in the past that affected US players negatively, yet it benefited international players. Remember Gym Challenges? They disappeared while more trips showed up overseas. I despised this change to begin with, but have since recognized it as a good thing because it got more players into the game. Guess what? This is nearly the exact same scenario. If you're complaining about age discrimination now, then I sure hope you were complaining about the pathetically little support international players were receiving back in the day. Funny though, I don't remember any cries of justice for that particular move.
Now, let me defend the masters, the most dedicated group of players that Organized Play has. Some decisions level the playing field a bit, just like the switch to international support TPCi made so long ago. This one doesn't. This decision seems aimed at pulling in more Juniors/Seniors. And while TPCi can make pretty much any decision they want when it comes to prize support, it doesn't mean they should. If they slashed all prize support for masters, I wouldn't be surprised if that group continued to grow. But again, most players would recognize it as greedy, selfish, and downright rude — then go on to play anyway. We are some of the most dedicated players TPCi will ever find, and while decisions like this won't change the decision of most masters to play, it certainly does feel unfair.
And to those saying that Masters will "continue to show up at Nationals," you're right. You're actually more right than you know! Like I said above, masters will continue to play because they love the game. It's the sad truth to this game. This doesn't come down to whether or not masters will play, it comes down to a level of respect. Masters will still show up at Nats, but they don't cram 8 in a room and carpool just because they're being thrifty; in many cases it's the best they can do. While some parents have to dedicate vacation time to make the trip, many masters don't even have vacation time to give up. Yet they still make it out. The masters are a dedicated playerbase, and this decision completely ignores their presence.
Better analogy would be three different raffles, free to enter, divided up among ages. Prize support is different among those ages, because 5x as many people enter the oldest raffle. Do you have a problem that the two smaller raffles get more prizes than you?
A few things.
Lawman points out that Seniors/Juniors groups have remained the same. That's not true, they continue to grow, but not at the same pace that Masters does. It has nothing to do with any of this. It has to do with them AGING up. When they age up, they end up in Masters eventually, so logically the one with the big age diversity is going to be the biggest by far.
Jason (GodBlessAmerica) points out this is the worst thing ever done. Ryan (Bullados) points out when the same thing I was thinking, it's not even close. When they eliminated the Masters division, that was clearly the worst moment in Pokemon, hands down.
You guys want to know why nobody has posting from TPCi, well it's your own darn fault. You guys ruthless BASHED them in the Battle Roads thread, and threw Dan under the bus when he tried to help. Not only wouldn't I be shocked if nobody posts in this thread about it, but it would be rightfully deserved after the way most of you treated them.
You also have to realize that most of the players on Pokegym ARE Masters, so this discuss is going to be biased if it only affects Masters.
I understand why they did it. It costs Parents a lot more to go around than it does for 1 Masters players. Do I agree with the choice. I don't, but it's not the end of the world like most of you make it sound. It was a poor choice. TPCi has made WAY more good choices than bad ones. Is this up there as far as one of the worst ones, yeah, I can see that, but hopefully they will realize this and in the near future we'll find out why, and what there exact reasoning. However if you want an answer from them, you need to be respectful, not insult them, and compare them to things that are truly things that are real life issues, not something that has to do with a hobby.
I think that overall it's bad for the game, but won't do anything to kill it. We still have Masters division, and until that goes away, I'm happy. The events are free, and while that's not a reasoning, the Prizes haven't changed from last year in Masters. If anything they actually went up a little bit in Masters since before T32 didn't get packs.
I don't like it, but I understand why they made the decision. Hopefully they change it eventually to better suit the Masters in the future, but for now we can only give our argument respectfully, and in a way that doesn't insult and undermine what we as Masters are trying to do. If you continue to insult TPCi, why would they want to help, listen, or even respond to you. They are under more stress than you realize, and to be honest, while it is their job to respond, I find that if you are courteous to people, they are more willing to respond and explain things to you, and maybe, change it for future events.
Drew
Yes. I think most people would. I feel like that wasn't the answer you were going for though.
...It doesn't make sense that Masters would get 1/4 of the prizes the other two, seemingly less lucrative, divisions get.
If anyone wants to let me know the average event attendance for Regionals in the Spring, I'd be happy to update my estimates. If you want to nitpick the cost of a deck, that isn't constructive to the overall conversation at hand.
This isn't random. This is very selective discrimination. I'd make a longer argument, but I've got class now. This change singles out one particular community (masters) while what you're talking about is the random distribution of people over our country. The location and number of tournaments in an area is determined by preset rules. If someone takes problem with that, there's always a way to sign up as a TO and attempt to get a new tournament. Where ever you go, you're going to be competing for the exact same thing.Touching back onto the ERMAHGERD AGE DISKRIMINASHUN (no offence to everybody; funny meme is funny (right sdrawkcab? :wink) thing, there's tons of random discrimination in this game. It's a necessary evil.
In order for somebody in my city to get to their BFL for events (so like, just to play in 6 BRs, 4 CCs, etc; and this is obviously under-counting because nobody with a ghost of chance will ever play in exactly the number of tournaments you can play in to hit a BFL limit), you would have to make eight 5 hour drives (4 BRs + 3 CCs + 1 Provincials), two 12.5 hour drives/2 hour flights (1 Provincials + 1 Regionals), one 22.5 hour drive/2.5 hour flight (1 Regionals), and one 3 day drive/4 hour flight (Nationals).
Compared to somebody in New England or California, this is CLEARLY discrimination based on location. It's unjust that a player here is screwed because there's not many events here! So it's only fair that TPCI equalize this unfair gap, under no control of the players, by compensating them to get to events. A couple thousand dollars per player sounds about right.
See how ridiculous that sounds? For whatever reason: age, location, whatever, there are going to be things in the tournament structure that are "blatantly unfair." You get over it and move on.
No doubt! If anything, logically I would expect that the division with the most entrants gets the most prizes. But to insist that they are get THE SAME, which is what proponents like BlisseyRocks say, doesn't necessarily make sense to me. So since Masters is unlikely to get more prizes than the other divisions, in my mind, the amount of prize support for each division can be a variable.
Well, here is where my reasoning respectfully diverges (acknowledging full well that we know each other in real life too). Although I don't have numbers to back this up, I suspect if we are trying to tie the prizes back to what is lucrative for the company, that the 5 to 15 age group (of course including non-competitive players) spends more on Pokémon cards than the 16+ age group. So if in the general population of the USA, the Junior and Senior aged kids are buying the most cards in general, why not give them more travel rewards? (Both your and my arguments work, it's just how one connects the dots.)
I am actually starting to look this up from my tournament list, because I'd like to see the ratios across the country of Juniors to Seniors to Masters.
This isn't random. This is very selective discrimination. I'd make a longer argument, but I've got class now. This change singles out one particular community (masters) while what you're talking about is the random distribution of people over our country. The location and number of tournaments in an area is determined by preset rules. If someone takes problem with that, there's always a way to sign up as a TO and attempt to get a new tournament. Where ever you go, you're going to be competing for the exact same thing.
Think about it this way. If there was a * next to the booster packs that says "we will award half as many booster packs if you have white hair", would you consider that discrimination? I certainly would. Even if TPCi gave some form of justification for this change, it'd still be discrimination. This is not a necessary evil... it is absolutely nonsense. The same goes for getting less money because we're older. If we accomplish the same thing as a 13 y/o, why should that 13 y/o get a stipend while we, older players, don't? The only reason the 13 y/o got the stipend is because they are a 13 y/o. THAT is age discrimination.
There's just major point I'd like to make here. These events are NOT free. The average competitive player probably spends $200+ on their deck alone (plus whatever other legal cards they have)