Prize Increase for States!

[Politoed666]

lol'ing all over the place

Initially thought OP was joking about more prize increases for the lower age divisions. Just seemed so ludicrous it had to be a joke.

If they're trying to "grow" those age divisions, that sure is a stupid way to do it. Completely agreed with whoever made the point about deeper prize supporter rather than even more top-heavy prize support. Most new J/S are going to have no chance at that $200; the same kids are still going to win everything. If I were considering entering a new card game, and was told "wow, they just added $200 to the first place prize at huge tournaments!" it would have next to no impact on my decision. I'm not stupid; I know I wouldn't be competitive enough to have a shot at that money for awhile.

 

[psychup2034]

Pokémon has publicly said they are focusing their limited dollars on attracting Junior and Senior-aged players.

If Pokemon is trying to attract more Junior and Senior-aged players, they're doing a horrendously unpragmatic job by giving out an additional $200 to someone whose parent(s) is already happy with their child's $300 prize instead of giving the additional stipend to the 2nd place finisher.

It seems like Pokemon is blindly throwing money at the Junior and Senior divisions without thinking about the best way to allocate the funds. That's not very pragmatic.

 

[Vegeta ss4]

I should have had a few babies a year back, could make a serious profit on this situation.

I truly feel for the other 2 age divisions that this is purely, "super". Maybe if I was obsessed with TPCi and the fact I am an employee of them, I'd have a different view. But since I don't have to hide my point of view, I can simply say in big word, "dumb."

We are trying to improve the game for younger players? Roger...I understand that, but at what cost? I'm not saying all masters are just going to quit and go play, idk, Yugioh. That would just be a complete lie, who does that? I do however think, that players who start out in the younger divisions will feel a sense of familiarity with the prizes. They will then proceed to the masters division, have to rely on their OWN money, not their parents and completly be astonished at how unfair it really is.

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing a successful youngster as much as the next guy, but lets not deluge their minds with success and money and a crash course later. Let life do that for them, not TPCi.

 

[losjackal]

I do however think, that players who start out in the younger divisions will feel a sense of familiarity with the prizes. They will then proceed to the masters division, have to rely on their OWN money, not their parents and completly be astonished at how unfair it really is.

Here's my issue with that. Some of the elite Masters today have been playing the game for a decade. They played (and won) in the era of Gym Challenges, where prize support was much bigger and there was less competition. They benefitted from those prizes, got "a sense of familiarity" with them as you say. But now, the prizes are a shadow of what was given out then, because TPC was aggressively trying to attract and grow players at the time.

Now, those Masters (yes, lumping everyone together, whether you played back then or not) are not complaining about the absolute value of prizes they used to have, and what they are awarded now. They are complaining about the relative difference between what a 22 year old Master can win and what an 11 or 15 year old player does. Really, isn't this childish? "He's getting more than me! I'm mad!"

I understand the equality argument, but it doesn't apply perfectly because the divisions ARE NOT equal. The Junior division can only pull from a pool of smart 7-11 year olds. The Senior division from 12-15 year olds. The Masters division is comprised of a pool of 16 on up. Of course there are going to be way many more of us. And by definition we will have played the game for many more years than the Juniors and Seniors. But that doesn't automatically mean we should get more rewards (no one has asked for that yet), and by the same token doesn't even mean we merit the same. The Masters division is different. It is the biggest without upper age limits. It is the same playerbase that keeps coming back to event after event, while the people in charge of the program have publicly said that the unique number of players is the metric they are paying attention to, which means for growth of the game, they have to target their budget keep trying to sign up new players.

The criticism of adding $200 to the two lower divisions is also off the mark. Kids are probably not even noticing that the Masters get less. The new parents reading about prizing and wondering if its worth it to take a day are indeed looking at the absolute dollar figure, and making a decision. They probably aren't noticing that it's increasing either, just that it's $500 plain and simple. At our early tournaments, we had no hopes of our kid taking first place, but every single family does think "what if?" and does pay attention to what the prizes are. And if the kid says "I think I have a good deck, I think I can win, I want to go play!" the parent is going to encourage that. So yes, the absolute dollar amount does make a difference.

 

[Vegeta ss4]

In the past, gym challenge was for EVERYONE. It was equal then, now it is NOT equal. It's just the facts. People who invest more SHOULD get paid more, or atleast get the same as everyone else?

I don't think a parents mindset should be, if he wins we keep the lights on, if he loses we wasted money on a trip. If this is the route we are going to go then why even play.

I feel the $200 could go somewhere else, I.e staffing, door prizes, venue payments, LUNCH, etc.

This is just my opinion that a lot of people most likely agree with.

 

[losjackal]

I feel the $200 could go somewhere else, I.e staffing, door prizes, venue payments, LUNCH, etc.

Yeah, I see this as a recurring suggestion. The fact is, it is indeed someone's job to figure out where to best spend money. They decided on this. Unless you're going to truly research the potential impact of a change, based on valid market research and applicable historical data, I'm going to trust the guy whose job it is to do so...which means they've by definition put more time and thought and discussion into it with other informed individuals. Not singling you out, because everyone thinks their idea is the best. It's human nature, if not especially the nature of posting on the Internet.

In the past, gym challenge was for EVERYONE. It was equal then, now it is NOT equal. It's just the facts. People who invest more SHOULD get paid more, or atleast get the same as everyone else?

Can you tell me more about this? What do you mean it was for everyone and equal back then?

 

[Vegeta ss4]

I guess with that logic we MUST trust the American govt to the fullest. In debt, lets just give money to "random island" to help their economy. Because they are paid to make smart money moves, we need to trust them, right?

I know that was off subject in a sense but needed to be said.


The gym challenges were for all age groups. I could be wrong, I came into this game around this time.

 

[losjackal]

I guess with that logic we MUST trust the American govt to the fullest.

Our government is a democracy, so yes, we trust our elected representatives to work on our best interests. If we don't like what they do, we vote for someone else, or run for government ourselves.

TPC is just a company, making decisions in their interest which must result in the net effect they want. Doesn't mean it will make every player happy as they have said.

Trying to get back on topic, re: Gym Challenge or not, I'm interested in counterarguments that might explain why the divisions should at least receive equal prizes, even though I'm illustrating how the player participation of the division is most certainly not equal. Maybe I'm off base in looking at it the way I am, but I'm finding it interesting that the lower divisions only pull from players in a 4-year age band, whereas Master's is pulling from a span of 34 years (16-50).

 

[Vegeta ss4]

Lol, well we could talk about politics I won't bring up the electoral college, just so we can stay on topic.

We do have more numbers and a bigger age seperation. It truly doesn't mean anything in my eyes. The point is, in my mind, from a competitive side. We put food on the table for the company. We all know collector's bring the big dough, but in terms of competitive play the masters shine. We have our jobs and our money and WE spend more of it on Pokemon than the younger players do. Its not a slap at their dedication, just a natural economic approach.

 

[losjackal]

The electoral college only has to do with the Presidential election. Easiest to argue about, but I'm talking about the real lawmakers and committee members...the Senators and Representatives and both the State and Federal level. But yes, back on point...

Maybe we can separate out Pokémon the company profiting from sales of booster packs, versus the attendance and growth of Organied Play. I've been trying to point out Dave's post on the Regionals thread of how they acknowledge the existing players who compete often event after event, but they use unique attendance as a better measure of growth. So even the raw attendance numbers we all have exposure to do not tell the whole story.

In other words, I don't think the managers of Organized Play need to care about how many booster boxes the typical Master buys. They absolutely have to care about how many new players show up at Premier events over the course of a year, and that is how they allocate their budget.

 

[ryanvergel]

If Pokemon is trying to attract more Junior and Senior-aged players, they're doing a horrendously unpragmatic job by giving out an additional $200 to someone whose parent(s) is already happy with their child's $300 prize instead of giving the additional stipend to the 2nd place finisher.

It seems like Pokemon is blindly throwing money at the Junior and Senior divisions without thinking about the best way to allocate the funds. That's not very pragmatic.

Yessss, totally.

Not only is Jason right in some of his points (looking at this from a fairness point of view), but just from the stance of expecting allocated resources to be allocated WELL, people should be dissatisifed with this.

There is only so much money. They want to use the money to grow the game. That is great!

However, this doesn't seem like it was a good decision or that it will accomplish it's goal very well. I don't think going from 300->500 for 1st place will have anything but a negligible impression on growing the game.

Deeper prizes (2nd place getting the 200, or even 100), or just more prizes/support- new players getting a theme deck, every JR/SR getting a pack, the top16 getting HATS, or beach balls, or a playmat, or something else.

It just doesn't seem like throwing that 200 at the kid who is already probably hyper-competitive is going to do anything. The kid that won is already hooked- they already got a nice stipend, the trophy, etc. It's like adding a cherry on top of the sundae, when you could have given ice cream to dozens of other kids instead.

I just think it's a poor decision on MULTIPLE fronts.

1. It's not fair to the largest player group. If you say "it's not fair, but it's not fair because it wants to grow the game"- I respond with:
2. It does a poor job of growing the game, and if that was the goal, the resources could have been allocated a DOZEN ways better (off the top of my head).
3. With those two facts in mind, it's perfectly reasonable for people to think this was a poor decision and be upset.

 

[losjackal]

Deeper prizes (2nd place getting the 200, or even 100), or just more prizes/support- new players getting a theme deck, every JR/SR getting a pack, the top16 getting HATS, or beach balls, or a playmat, or something else.

If P!P did that too, would you and others be okay then with the additional $200 stipend for Jr/Sr?

 

[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?

Just quoting myself because I would like an answer. Why is this NOW an issue?

 

[Ness]

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?

Offer an award that would cover a child and guardian's travel ($500 seems reasonable), but also extend that same increase to the Masters division. Just because someone can travel alone doesn't mean they should be entitled to less of an award.

Price of cards: up, up, up.
Attendance at events: up, up, up.

The money is there for TPCi. It just isn't used wisely.

 

[ryanvergel]

If P!P did that too, would you and others be okay then with the additional $200 stipend for Jr/Sr?

What do you mean when you say "did that too"?

If they had 500 for 1st, and 200 for 2nd in the JRs and SRs?

Would we be "okay" with it? Like I said, the problems aren't that shallow. First, no, it still doesn't address fairness. If we ignore fairness on the premise that "growing the game in JRs and SRs is more paramount than fairness", then still, even a stipend for distribution for 1st and 2nd isn't GREAT, but it seems BETTER than 500/0.

So, would I be okay with it? Probably not. MORE okay? Sure, it's a better solution than 500/0.

I think if we are to go the route that TPCi is headed regardless of fairness, then they should at least make the BEST use of those resources. I, and many others, think the best use of those resources, IF you are to disregard fairness for the sake of the idea that inequality supports longevity in the game, then it should be deeper and more well thought out.

I think more tokens of accomplishment, or easier access are better than a very top-heavy allocation of resources. Hats for top16, a pack for everyone, a free theme deck for brand new players- these seem to all accomplish that goal much better than 300+200/0.

---------- Post added 02/07/2013 at 02:17 PM ----------

Offer an award that would cover a child and guardian's travel ($500 seems reasonable), but also extend that same increase to the Masters division. Just because someone can travel alone doesn't mean they should be entitled to less of an award.

Price of cards: up, up, up.
Attendance at events: up, up, up.

The money is there for TPCi. It just isn't used wisely.

Unless their budget is more fixed.

Price of cards going up, attendance going up, more money for Nintendo/Pokemon/Creatures/whomever doesn't seem to affect their budget resources (at least from what we have physically seen).

The money IS there though, in that it could still be used wisely. I think adding 200 to the winners of JRs and SRs is definitely not even close to the wisest use of that budget.

---------- Post added 02/07/2013 at 02:18 PM ----------

Just quoting myself because I would like an answer. Why is this NOW an issue?

because it was only recently announced?

It's an issue NOW because it was only MADE an issue NOW. The announcement for the change was very recent, so what are you even getting at?

 

[losjackal]

What do you mean when you say "did that too"?

Oh, sorry it wasn't clear. I was referring to the suggestions people have of spending $200 a different way:

or just more prizes/support- new players getting a theme deck, every JR/SR getting a pack, the top16 getting HATS, or beach balls, or a playmat, or something else.

Vince gave away hats to every Junior at St. Louis Regionals. Jimmy gives away theme decks to kids who need them to play. What I'm asking is, if P!P decided to implement any number of these "something else" things suddenly, would you (as a representative example) be okay with them still adding $200 travel for the Junior and Senior 1st place?

My guess is no, because no matter what, it boils down to the Juniors and Seniors getting more than the Masters. It can be smoke screened with "it's not increasing attendance" or "playmats and theme decks will attract more kids" and "advertise on TV instead", but in the end it's about the Capuchin monkeys who demonstrate it's not fair that one monkey gets paid with a grape and the other gets paid with a cucumber. Funny video, but unlike that example where it's monkey vs. monkey, I've been arguing that the Master's division is different than the lower divisions. I see claims about unfairness, but I do not see what about the division structure should mandate equal prizing. All the reasons that are citied that it is deserved....the most players, been a customer for X years, show up tournament after tournament....are all built-in to the fact that the Masters division encompasses everyone who isn't a Junior or Senior! (Obvious statement, but think about it. Master's is the catch-all.) Valid reasons have been given about why it is logical that Junior and Senior divisions should get more, but still, it ends up with "not fair".

 

[FSULugia]

Its kind of dumb that everyone keeps saying "its not fair" or "that doesnt do anything" as their arguments. Again with my Christmas example, your kid gets more gifts than you do, do you complain that its "not fair" or that "it doesnt make a difference"? LIFE IS NOT FAIR, that is reality. It bothers me sometimes how everyone acts like there needs to be so much justice in A CARD GAME over something that people might not even end up being affected by.

How about someone makes a comment in this thread like I dunno...."hey good for the kids now they and their parents can get some more money"? Its not like its easy for parents either. When I played Pokemon/YGO competitively they used to drive me 2 hours back and forth to a tournament just so Id shut up for the week. I cant imagine how much stress I used to give them back when I was younger over something that they probably thought was dumb.

If your on here complaining that the Pokemon prize support is bad, I feel like you have an entire other issue to work out. I dont see what everyones complaining will accomplish since a lot of it just seems really self centered and immature. If your argument is "oh they are punching us in the mouth" or "i need money to pay for my hotel room", then i think you need to rethink your priorities while playing this game.

 

[z-man]

Its kind of dumb that everyone keeps saying "its not fair" or "that doesnt do anything" as their arguments. Again with my Christmas example, your kid gets more gifts than you do, do you complain that its "not fair" or that "it doesnt make a difference"? LIFE IS NOT FAIR, that is reality. It bothers me sometimes how everyone acts like there needs to be so much justice in A CARD GAME over something that people might not even end up being affected by.

How about someone makes a comment in this thread like I dunno...."hey good for the kids now they and their parents can get some more money"? Its not like its easy for parents either. When I played Pokemon/YGO competitively they used to drive me 2 hours back and forth to a tournament just so Id shut up for the week. I cant imagine how much stress I used to give them back when I was younger over something that they probably thought was dumb.

If your on here complaining that the Pokemon prize support is bad, I feel like you have an entire other issue to work out. I dont see what everyones complaining will accomplish since a lot of it just seems really self centered and immature. If your argument is "oh they are punching us in the mouth" or "i need money to pay for my hotel room", then i think you need to rethink your priorities while playing this game.

1. So you agree this decision isn't fair? Last I checked, nobody likes feeling like they're being treated unfairly. As players, we love the game of Pokemon, but many of us feel like TPCi is treating its masters unfairly. If nothing else, can you understand why we're unhappy with the changes? Even if it is a facade of unfairness, can you see that we feel like this change is unfair? Given time, many of us will accept the changes and move on. When asked, though, we will always have a bitter taste in our mouths because of this change.

2. Your Chrismas analogy isn't exactly great. We aren't given prizes... we earn the prizes. The prizes are set out as a bar to reach. If you can reach that bar, you get free stuff. I'd like to provide a different analogy to show you where I'm coming from. Imagine we're all students taking a math test. The test is setup in two categories: junior and senior mathematics. Junior math is for anyone in 8th grade or lower, and senior math is for anyone 9th-12th grade. Senior math has harder questions and more people taking the test. Our goal as test takers is to get a higher score than everyone else. The system in charge decided to give the junior test a $100 cash prize, but they only gave the senior test a $60 prize. Theoretically, we are achieving the same thing, regardless of which division we're in, so why reward one achievement over another? Moreover, the senior test is actually demonstrably more difficult. Even so, they get less for achieving the same thing as the juniors. In my opinion, equal achievements should provide equal rewards... especially when all the rewards are coming from the same place.

3. Parents do do a lot of the work for their children. Why is it that a parent of a 14 year old (senior)and a parent of a 15 year old (master) should get different compensation? This seems like an arbitrary line. If that's their goal, they should make it $300 ($500 for 17 and younger). They require a parent be present when picking up the stipends for a minor, so that's a fairly easy explanation to give. As an 18 year old, I don't need a parent to pick up my stipend, so if my parent decides to go to nats, its on their own accord. Making parents' lives easier pretty clearly isn't the primary goal, or they'd make the line less arbitrary.

4. We all play the game. some of us play the game enough to get well enough to compete (and win) at states. Compared to other games TCGs, Pokemon prize support sucks. And yet we all still play. That pretty clearly isn't the real issue, or else many of us posting here would go play Magic exclusively. The real issue is that TPCi is favoring an audience outside of its core audience. Professor_Dav has been very clear that the purposes of the prize change is to increase popularity of the juniors and seniors divisions. That's a goal that we can all get behind! Many of us feel that this is going about it the wrong way while the money could be better spent either increasing prizes for everyone (including the core audience) or making the game more popular in other ways. We can all agree that Professor_Dav's intent is pure.

5. Let's try to be mature here, I agree. We should all avoid name calling and the negative words towards each other. I'd agree that this isn't "punching us in the mouth"... more along the lines of "alienating [the] largest division" (~ Ness). Being told that you earned less than another person who accomplished the exact same thing as you is not fun... no matter who you are. It may be a minor thing, and it may only affect 1 person per states, but it is still there. IMO, TPCi should set the bar equally for everyone so that nobody feels left out or less than the other divisions.

 

[ryanvergel]

Oh, sorry it wasn't clear. I was referring to the suggestions people have of spending $200 a different way:



Vince gave away hats to every Junior at St. Louis Regionals. Jimmy gives away theme decks to kids who need them to play. What I'm asking is, if P!P decided to implement any number of these "something else" things suddenly, would you (as a representative example) be okay with them still adding $200 travel for the Junior and Senior 1st place?

My guess is no, because no matter what, it boils down to the Juniors and Seniors getting more than the Masters. It can be smoke screened with "it's not increasing attendance" or "playmats and theme decks will attract more kids" and "advertise on TV instead", but in the end it's about the Capuchin monkeys who demonstrate it's not fair that one monkey gets paid with a grape and the other gets paid with a cucumber. Funny video, but unlike that example where it's monkey vs. monkey, I've been arguing that the Master's division is different than the lower divisions. I see claims about unfairness, but I do not see what about the division structure should mandate equal prizing. All the reasons that are citied that it is deserved....the most players, been a customer for X years, show up tournament after tournament....are all built-in to the fact that the Masters division encompasses everyone who isn't a Junior or Senior! (Obvious statement, but think about it. Master's is the catch-all.) Valid reasons have been given about why it is logical that Junior and Senior divisions should get more, but still, it ends up with "not fair".

I think if we are to go the route that TPCi is headed regardless of fairness, then they should at least make the BEST use of those resources. I, and many others, think the best use of those resources, IF you are to disregard fairness for the sake of the idea that inequality supports longevity in the game, then it should be deeper and more well thought out.

I think more tokens of accomplishment, or easier access are better than a very top-heavy allocation of resources. Hats for top16, a pack for everyone, a free theme deck for brand new players- these seem to all accomplish that goal much better than 300+200/0.

Like I said, there is a great amount of validity in the desire for equal prizes.

However, it might be best to forgo fairness if we earnestly believe that unequal resource allocation will benefit the longevity of the game. If that is the case (which, regardless of how we feel about fairness IS the case and how the game will proceed and has proceeded, it's always been subtle, with more kids in JRs and SRs getting LCQ invites, and slowly, now, more travel allowances and the like), then we should at least ensure if you're going to do something unfairly for the sake of everyone's benefit, you should at least make the most of it- and I don't think 300->500 for 1st place is doing that.

As for your question, it's either loaded or doesn't make sense, at least to me.
Would I be okay with +200 be adding AND all the other stimulus?

The entire point of the other stimulus/spending is BECAUSE the +200 is a poor allocation. It is supposed to be IN PLACE of the 200 because the budget is finite.

If TPCi gave out theme decks to all new players, gave hats to all the players, gave all the players beach balls, gave a pack to every kid who entered, had playmats for everyone, and then decided to do 300->500, would I like that idea?
No. Because I would still think 300 to 1st and 200 to 2nd would be better. You might say, what if they did THAT too and made it 500/200, I would say the same- I can think of better ways to use the money, even if you're just trying to distribute stipends. I think at that point you're just going to keep adding unreasonable criteria to try to pin me into a position that is hard to defend and relies on the idea that "oh, it isn't fair". Eventually it just gets slippery. But I see what you are TRYING to do, and I'm not that easy to trap.

So, no, i think you're wrong to try to reduce my entire argument into merely point 1. My argument is two-fold.

My points are:
1. It isn't fair.
2. If the fairness doesn't matter, or if fairness<longevity, then this decision is STILL bad, because that sole focus on 1st place isn't achieving that goal well at all.


Trying to isolate my argument and reduce it to only one facet of its two premises is not going to work. My argument is so sound BECAUSE it has those two premises (even though the second point has the conclusion mixed in, it's pretty easy to see what is being gotten at). It only ends up with "it's not fair" if you try to misinterpret the argument, or try to force it into that corner.

----------

tl;dr:

This isn't a poor decision because it is unfair. It is a poor decision because even if you disregard fairness, it's still a poor allocation of the funds/budget.

 

[losjackal]

Thoughtful reply, z-man. Thanks for contributing. It does help me better see the other side, but it's still an issue that could go either way. It's certainly not equal, but I can't quite get to calling it unfair. Fairness is subjective once you weigh the many factors. Like in your math test, part of the issue is getting the Junior division to show up for the math test in the first place. That's what the increase is trying to address.

Think of it this way: last year it was equal, with $300 for each division. That was fine, Masters played the game, everyone was happy. Now Juniors and Seniors get $200 more, and suddenly $300 isn't good enough for Masters. That's what I'm having trouble with. You do acknowledge it's a feeling....but because of those feelings, P!P can never increase the Juniors and Seniors without upsetting the Masters? I would say that's unfair to Dave who has to make his budget work year after year and meet his goals.