Prize Increase for States!

[Diaz]

http://www.pokemon.com/us/play-pokemon/championship-series/tcg-stateprovinceterritory-championships/

Read this this morning, don't think it's already being discussed here. Looks like Juniors and Seniors will be receiving $200 more for their States wins than in the past. I think the rest is the same.

 

[TheAnswer3]

So I get why Nintendo did this, being a master in my mid twenties. Most masters can attend nats on their own. However what about the bottom end of the masters age group? 15-17 probably isn't taking a trip to a big city on there own. Just change the age divisions already and this would make so much more sense.

 

[Raen]

Another punch in the face to Masters. This is really frustrating and I feel it is really unfair to the - by far - largest age division.

 

[losjackal]

Age division changes introduce other issues.

Fair doesn't mean equal.

Pokémon has publicly said they are focusing their limited dollars on attracting Junior and Senior-aged players, who will turn hopefully into people like the Masters in this community now after years and years of spending money. Let's face it, every Master can walk away from the game at any given time due to a number of potential priorities that may come up in their lives. Whereas, growth will come from forming new bonds and reinforcing existing bonds with the younger players that have less potential distractions. That's how I see it anyway. If you're going to get frustrated with every piece of news that doesn't cater to the Masters, I think you're causing yourself undue worry.

 

[pnoodle5]

Ouch, this is hard for kids (by which I mean Masters under 18) who are more casually into Pokemon and maybe don't have so much money yet. I understand why the spread is different, I suppose, I don't really like it but Masters seem to be the most mature and dedicated player group and are probably best suited (unfortunately) to handle their own funds.

Makes it kinda rough for Poke-Parents without a huge wad of cash laying around, though, if their kid wants to go to Nationals.

I think it makes sense on the whole though. The easier and more appealing you make it to talented kids, the more likely they are to stick it through and eventually become event organizers and things of that nature.

It's also probably more appealing to parents, whereas most parents of Masters are probably not so involved with their kid's finances. Especially out of college.

 

[Raen]

Age division changes introduce other issues.

Fair doesn't mean equal.

Pokémon has publicly said they are focusing their limited dollars on attracting Junior and Senior-aged players, who will turn hopefully into people like the Masters in this community now after years and years of spending money. Let's face it, every Master can walk away from the game at any given time due to a number of potential priorities that may come up in their lives. Whereas, growth will come from forming new bonds and reinforcing existing bonds with the younger players that have less potential distractions. That's how I see it anyway. If you're going to get frustrated with every piece of news that doesn't cater to the Masters, I think you're causing yourself undue worry.

I just don't think that this change actually does help Junior and Senior division growth at all. This was discussed pretty in-depth with the Regionals prize changes. You are essentially just giving an extra $200 to ONE person who was most likely going to attend Nationals anyway. The only people who really care about the extra $200 are those players who were going to be playing at these events anyway. Your average kid won't look at the prizes and say "Whoa, $500 to go to Nationals! I think I can win that so I'll go to this tournament I wouldn't have gone to!". And you can put the $300 in there instead of the $500 and it doesn't change anything at all.

So really, your just frustrating some Masters players while not helping attendance at all. I just don't see the point. If they have extra money in the budget, why not spend that on better prize support all around? (For example, and extra $125 for all 3 divisions rather than $200 for 2 of them or something like that) Or, if you REALLY want to improve attendance, spend that money on advertising and door prizes.

 

[yoshi1001]

I still think it would be wiser to make the prizes go deeper rather than larger. Focus on giving more players a better experience that day.

 

[FirestormXVI]

I agree with Raen that this doesn't help increase participation at all unless you're hoping that they play for one more year after Seniors and stop playing because they can't manage to get 1st in Masters which is the only spot where they get money at Regionals. However, disagree with him that Juniors / Seniors don't need a bit more money due to requiring a parent or guardian to attend Nationals. Any prize given to someone under 18 is effectively only worth half as much.

I liked how they used to do it in the video game where anyone under 18 would receive a travel stipend / award for their parent or guardian regardless of division. Seemed much more fair.

If TPCi wants to increase participation in the younger divisions, I don't think increasing the prizes at the top is the key. Hopefully that's a lesson they take from this season and use to improve the next.

 

[ShadowCard]

I still think it would be wiser to make the prizes go deeper rather than larger. Focus on giving more players a better experience that day.

Agreed.

Or, if you REALLY want to improve attendance, spend that money on advertising and door prizes.

Those would have to be some extravagant door prizes--like game consoles and booster boxes or giving out booster packs each round--to make people put door prizes high on the list of reasons to go to events.

 

[Ness]

Let me get this straight: You have three divisions in Pokémon: one of them has more players than the other two combined. And you offer prize increases for only the other two?

It's wrong. We can all speculate as to the reasons TPCi chooses to fund Juniors and Seniors, but none of those reasons make it any less unfair or any less wrong. This was a complete slap in the face to the Masters Division, the backbone of organized play, and a move reminiscent of the WotC days.

 

[ShadowCard]

Let's face it, every Master can walk away from the game at any given time due to a number of potential priorities that may come up in their lives. Whereas, growth will come from forming new bonds and reinforcing existing bonds with the younger players that have less potential distractions.

How many of those Masters are actually rides for Juniors and Seniors or serve as league leaders?

People keep looking for reasons to dismiss Masters. Losjackal, you see the numbers on your website. Just how big are Masters and is "every Master can walk away from the game at any given time due to a number of potential priorities that may come up in their lives" realistic in that light? Are Juniors really a small division, are its numbers standing up well against last year, or is it actually growing?

This was a complete slap in the face to the Masters Division, the backbone of organized play, and a move reminiscent of the WotC days.

I'm surprised more people have not made that connection.

It appalls me to think someone gets paid to make these decisions. Outrageous!

Perhaps, in the grander scheme of things, Masters will get a better return from this? Sacrificing a little now may give masters better support in the future (and I don't mean in the form of more future Masters rising out of the younger divisions).

 

[losjackal]

Let me get this straight: You have three divisions in Pokémon: one of them has more players than the other two combined. And you offer prize increases for only the other two?

If you're trying to grow the other two, yes. For a crass analogy, think of a bar with ladies' night. There's no shortage of guys, so you try to entice the girls to attend with drink specials and no cover charge. You don't reward the guys that are already in the bar.

I'm not saying it's been effective (yet) at solving the overall problem, because that's someone's job to measure and decide. But it is logical.

Plenty of Masters show up for tournaments as is. Nationals had over 1,000 last year right? So I'd like to know what directing more prizes towards Masters is supposed to accomplish. More attendance? That's not the problem they're trying to solve. There's plenty of Masters crowding up States as is, thus the whole 2-day thing. Instead, you guys want recognition, I get it, and you get mad that TPC doesn't reward you for your continued patronage as much as it visibly does with the younger divisions. That's just how the world works sometimes.


I'm really not sure what you're proposing, other than equal prizes. I hope you're not using your logic of "Masters has more than the other two combined" to get MORE prizes than the Juniors and Seniors, are you?

You guys have been playing this game for a lot longer than I've been involved, so maybe I'm coming at this from a more objective perspective. I see that the age divisions are not equal at all, not by a long shot. Why? Look at the possible pool of players. Juniors are born in 2002 and later. Cognitively that means like 7 - 11 year olds. Seniors are born in 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001. That is only four years worth of players to pull from. Masters is anyone born in 1997 or earlier....a WAY bigger pool of potential players. Makes sense there are more Master's right? So you don't reward the biggest division just because there are more of them, citing it deserves equality with the other divisions. The divisions are not equal. The less populated ones need more incentive.

 

[Ness]

Carlos, you're taking a pragmatic approach to all of this, and you're right that toying with these numbers might do different things for different groups. Yes, you might be able to accomplish things by messing with the numbers and prizes of certain divisions, but just because you can, should you? I'm looking at it only from a principled point of view -- what is fair, what is right. Alienating your largest division certainly doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[kd0220437]

I understand what they're trying to accomplish but it's not fair, and it's wrong for the masters. Masters are what support this game, and what keep it going. They buy the packs, they travel more than any other age group, and we always have more players. I think it should at the very LEAST be evenly matched prize support wise. It's frustrating when a game that I love, and I know many others do too, kind of kicks you when you're down. I'm frustrated, and tired of being treated like this. Grow the game yes, but do so for everyone.

 

[losjackal]

Thank you for acknowledging that what is going right now, at the very least, is pragmatic. I bother to post (perhaps at my own risk) because people seem to be genuinely saying they can't comprehend any other viewpoint.

but just because you can, should you?

Fantastic question, one that also fundamentally acknowledges there is more than one possibility. I'm sure Pokémon is aware of the risk of alienating some Masters. To be blunt, maybe the attendance numbers can handle it. They know that if they want to keep this game alive for another 10 years, they need to cater to the kids 12 and under as Professor Dav has said.

 

[LOLZ]

Players under the age of 18 who win a travel award to an event wins a 2nd airline ticket for a parent/guardian to attend as well. Those over 18 only win an airline ticket for them self.

Prizes are already unequal, why is this a new issue?

Note- I understand the reasoning behind the increased prize support, and not complaining about it. I am just asking why is this NOW and issue and not before?

 

[carlitosbob]

Better options to grow the game

Do kids care about the extra money? No. Do their parents? Yes. Just like with all age divisions, it will take a season or two to sort out the bad plays and start winning. So increasing prizes for the younger ages does nothing for growth. While increasing it for masters sustains the player base. Growth comes from exposure. Advertising on cartoon network every 3 months for the new sets is not the way to go. Advertising OP is. And what better way to get kids to talk about pokemon than merch? I went to MO regionals, and saw the kids getting their free hats, how excited they were, how even when they lost they still felt like the trip was worth it since they got a hat. Kids aren't usually allowed hats in school, and even free shirts might not get worn because of school uniforms, but bindera are really a great item. If they only have one, it will likely just be used for cards, but if they have 2 + (say from attending more than one state championship, or regionals and a states) then one will likely become their school notebook. Their friends will ask about it, and then by word of mouth, they will talk about it and kids will find out that the TCG even exists.

What good is increasing their prize support goi to do if they have to invest time/money to even reach that level? Free merch for just showing up encourages them to keep coming back, have fun, make friends. And honestly, that is the reason us masters still play. We made friends, we have fun, we come back because of that, even in the face of insults from other friends who don't play. We don't need TPCi insulting us as well by having us feel like we do not matter to the company.

 

[FSULugia]

Think of Pokemon prizes like Christmas (or your other respective winter religious holiday) gifts. When your older you dont care about getting gifts for christmas since it has no meaning to you. To you its just stressful having to make food, go buy gifts, put on a big thing that you personally probably wouldnt want since you done this a billion times and now just dont care anymore. To kids its something special, to them its something they get excited about, even if its not a big deal to you, to them its everything. Its like in pokemon, they dont see that kind of money handed to them all the time. 300 dollars is a joke to most adults, to kids they think they are rich.

If your older, you should play Pokemon because its fun since being at that age expecting something to do it is well kinda depressing. Its like losjackal said, your there because you really want to be there (or potentially for some really creep reason, either way who cares), why would you care about a few more packs or dollars?

 

[SMP88]

Think of Pokemon prizes like Christmas (or your other respective winter religious holiday) gifts. When your older you dont care about getting gifts for christmas since it has no meaning to you. To you its just stressful having to make food, go buy gifts, put on a big thing that you personally probably wouldnt want since you done this a billion times and now just dont care anymore. To kids its something special, to them its something they get excited about, even if its not a big deal to you, to them its everything. Its like in pokemon, they dont see that kind of money handed to them all the time. 300 dollars is a joke to most adults, to kids they think they are rich.

If your older, you should play Pokemon because its fun since being at that age expecting something to do it is well kinda depressing. Its like losjackal said, your there because you really want to be there (or potentially for some really creep reason, either way who cares), why would you care about a few more packs or dollars?

It's a travel stipend, not an extra $200 cash. Kids aren't going to be able to use this money to buy bubblegum and soda pop, it's going to be collected at Nats by their parents, who are taking them to the event.

I play because it's fun, but I'd still like to be rewarded accordingly for how I perform. I make a decent salary, but an extra $200 is still an extra $200. If that means I don't have to pay for a hotel at Nats now how wouldn't it help me?

 

[FSULugia]

It's a travel stipend, not an extra $200 cash. Kids aren't going to be able to use this money to buy bubblegum and soda pop, it's going to be collected at Nats by their parents, who are taking them to the event.

I play because it's fun, but I'd still like to be rewarded accordingly for how I perform. I make a decent salary, but an extra $200 is still an extra $200. If that means I don't have to pay for a hotel at Nats now how wouldn't it help me?

See the problem with that is that you think there should be a double standard. It doesnt really work that way since your a free adult (most likely are) that is choosing to go there and will go there no matter what. The kids parents have to take time off and take their kids to the tournament.

Its like Dennys giving kids a free meal verses making you pay for it. There trying to incentive a certain crowd to play. It makes no sense to incentive whats already spending money and is coming back since that is consistent.