Just to be clear; assuming the cut had to happen somewhere,
Wrong assumption, Otaku. Who says that has to be the case? Why can't TPCi find new sources of income to take care of emerging markets instead of cannibalizing current ones? However let's go with your assumption for the purpose of this post.
... how likely is it that it would not be more damaging to cut prizes at a lower level, given that while the lower level prizes are more numerous, they are also less expensive (and thus more would have to be cut)?
Here's a fix I thought of in 5 minutes. It may be oversimplified and may need some polish to implement, but it would work. TPCi considers BR's as more or less insignificant, and other than some players' goal of gaining PPs, the pull of the prize structure is pretty minimal. Why doesn't TPCi use the savings which would accrue from providing product (through no production of non essential boosters, and the resultant postal savings - since the remaining prizes could be shipped in bubble envelopes) to provide a second trip to Mexican and Canadian markets, and possibly even resupply small scholarships even, without cannibalizing any from the European markets. Though this may cause a small amount of attendance loss, it won't stop many people from playing for the promo, PPs, and bragging rights. Spoiler alert for those who have been hiding under a rock for the past few years, you might not want to read the next sentence: It may also cause a slight gain in value for TPCi since here in North America, TPCi has paid PTO's for each player who attends. However, perhaps TPCi may be able to slightly make up for any confirmed loss of income from the last year in some other manner, perhaps by raising the base compensation for each reported event - or providing only the PTO's and certain more prolific TO's special tournament-worthy promos that they can sell or use to supplement their loss (another suggestion originally forwarded by you which I've just adopted to fit a need). In any case, with a little out of the box thinking by the employees at TPCi, and listening to suggestions from people like from the grassroots league leaders, owners, and tournament organizers, they can still show that they still value growth and prevent attrition from poor Nat's prizes (like Sebastian's post exemplified).
I just want to be sure I wasn't obfuscating my own point; even if you consider everyone in Nationals as "affected"... how would that compare to the full attendance of a lower level tournament series?
Since it's been put forth by David Schwimmer that Canada seems to cycle between the 5 or 6 hundred players or so during any given event series, once the word is given that lower prizes at BR's would make larger Nat's prizes, I'm sure players would be willing to run with it. Like I said earlier, there may be instances of lower attendance at SOME events across North America, but for the most part, I have a feeling it won't be too bad.
I don't know off the top of my head what Canada hosts,
Other than the larger areas of geography inhibiting inexpensive travel between larger sections of the player populations and somewhat less numbers of events in the western portions of the country (3 BR's/CC's per event cycle compared to Ontario's 15+ events), Canada has pretty much the same schedule as the US has. However traveling to multiple states/regionals can be a very expensive pastime due to geography.
but assuming you have them, if all your City or Regional Champhionships had to have their prizes also trimmed, wouldn't that discourage things even more? Again, if I missed where all of that was also cut this year, please let me know as I was operating under an incomplete picture.
It's pretty hard to give a concrete answer to a hypothetical question, especially not knowing the scope of the cuts and areas affected. No way I could even hazard a guess. As for if States/Regionals was short prized here in Canada, I'm afraid I have no idea - bad memory for that sort of thing. You'd have to ask some of the other more prolific players.
Here we must flat out disagree, perhaps in part
because your take completely misses my point. (
Bold for emphasis, not because I am raging or anything. :lol
On the contrary, I do see your point. However earlier I postulated that a finite budget might not be the problem you think it is. Either seeking a larger source of income, or better and different management of supplies that are available will change things significantly. Opening yourself to the possibility of change actually sometimes being better can show most dissenters here that it's possible to make a difference without sacrificing huge sections of prize support.
The purpose of travel awards is to get a competitor to Worlds. Is it a nice reward? Yes, but considering there is a finite budget we are dealing with, then it seems only prudent to cut back on trips for the host country.
Hmmmm, ok let me remind you of that next time Worlds is back on American soil. Ha ha.
So if you feel that said trips are an important part of the prizes,
Yes, along with the Scholarships .... for some reason people are just not getting the fact that I find those as being just as if not more important than the trips.
:nonono:
then I would suggest (especially) a cost efficient alternative to provide to the host country. Perhaps some promo cards that are only available for winning Nationals; not something overly unique (e.g. providing them some potential hideous card pool advantage) but perhaps (even if they can't be handed out immediately) some of the Worlds swag (often good for re-sale) could be substituted and mailed out (or awarded at Worlds). Obviously another "Tropical Beach scenario would result in card pool advantage, but that is a separate issue.
Hmmm, I suppose that's not an overly bad solution. It's probably worth a look, and certainly shows you think outside the box as well. That's what TPCi needs to listen to.
As for the rest of your post, hopefully when TPCi reads this thread, as they invariably will, hopefully they will realize that even though SOME might not possess tact, their message is still pertinent and they should look past the manner of the message to the meat of the message which is this: Current prize support is failing to entice players. Too much is spent unwisely that could and should be earmarked for better Nats prizes, not cutting of such.
