wait, you're saying that being able to tell a junior 'we're going to nationals!' isn't a prize they can understand?
Fall Regional Prizes Anounced
- Thread starter Prodigiosus
- Start date
Team CREAM
New Member
Is everyone looking over how this is for fall regionals only so far? They could be changing it for Spring and Winter, you never know until it's announced.
JWittz
New Member
I have and always will have a very hard time believing that a child's family can afford the cards needed to compete at the top level of this game, but cannot also afford a trip to Nationals. If I can afford to go on a minimum-wage job despite $35,000 of student loans every year, I doubt that a family - much more likely to be supported by a full-time career, cannot afford the same.
If there are families out there that are paying for their child to have a competitive deck, but cannot afford a trip to nationals, they are probably not spending their money wisely. I understand that there are circumstances where a child might be borrowing cards from another player, but this circumstance is few and far between. Almost all of the top 4 juniors and seniors that I saw in my local area for regionals last year still made the trip to nationals, and that was with no prize to aid the trip.
Oaksnewtheory
New Member
Today at battleroads I talked to a fellow pokedad. He was very adement about not increasing prizes for masters since it will draw in younger players. Both his sons are seniors. I asked what will happen when his sons become masters, his response was "we will switch to Magic"
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Josh, you also live 4 hours (roughly) from Nationals. And I'm guessing you get some kind of subsidy to go there by your new gaming masters.
What about those on the West Coast? Mountain West? Deep South? Heck, Minneapolis? $500 is about the cost of one plane ticket from the west coast. For Minny, it's two tickets. They still have to pay for hotels, food, and possibly a second ticket depending on where they're from.
What about those on the West Coast? Mountain West? Deep South? Heck, Minneapolis? $500 is about the cost of one plane ticket from the west coast. For Minny, it's two tickets. They still have to pay for hotels, food, and possibly a second ticket depending on where they're from.
JWittz
New Member
I used "I" as a rough estimate for "any master" paying out of pocket. Nationals isn't a good example for me personally, but my point was the fact that most Masters will spend a large percentage of their income on the game, and probably have a higher desire for travel rewards than a child would.
A better personal example for me would be PAX, which I chose to go to this summer instead of Nationals because it was something I had dreamed of going to for years. I couldn't afford both. The only thing my "new gaming masters" have helped me get was a media pass to PAX, which helped me cover the $85 a three-day pass would normally cost. The roughly $1000 total cost of a plane ticket/hotel/etc. was equivalent to an entire month's savings from my internship, which paid minimum wage.
I'm not trying to argue that a travel stipend is useless. It's money, arguing that it isn't useful would be absurd. I'm not trying to argue that a trip to National isn't expensive, either - I'm sure a full family from one of the coasts could have to drop up to $2000 for a trip to Nationals. My argument is that Masters drop a higher percentage of their income on the game via travel expenses, and probably desire travel awards more than any other division. I just believe that Pokémon could probably pull more Junior/Senior interest by changing the prize awarded to Juniors/Seniors to something that isn't most sought after by Masters currently. Why not make the prize a tangible scholarship instead?
A better personal example for me would be PAX, which I chose to go to this summer instead of Nationals because it was something I had dreamed of going to for years. I couldn't afford both. The only thing my "new gaming masters" have helped me get was a media pass to PAX, which helped me cover the $85 a three-day pass would normally cost. The roughly $1000 total cost of a plane ticket/hotel/etc. was equivalent to an entire month's savings from my internship, which paid minimum wage.
I'm not trying to argue that a travel stipend is useless. It's money, arguing that it isn't useful would be absurd. I'm not trying to argue that a trip to National isn't expensive, either - I'm sure a full family from one of the coasts could have to drop up to $2000 for a trip to Nationals. My argument is that Masters drop a higher percentage of their income on the game via travel expenses, and probably desire travel awards more than any other division. I just believe that Pokémon could probably pull more Junior/Senior interest by changing the prize awarded to Juniors/Seniors to something that isn't most sought after by Masters currently. Why not make the prize a tangible scholarship instead?
psychup2034
New Member
Where are you finding this $500 scoop of ice cream? I want to try it.
HotGustofWind
New Member
Can we all stop crying about the decision and turn our energy to helping Dave address his goal of increasing jr/sr participation? Dave’s post was #201. Nearly 150 posts later, according to my quick skim read, only a handful even suggested something that might help increase the younger player base. A few others (like me) suggested ways to increase revenues to help with prize support.
Now you might be saying, figuring this out is not your job, fair enough. But if you feel a sense of community, then I think you may want to be part of the solution.
While I said previously I did not have a good answer, I think maybe folks closer to the game might. So my suggestion is to INCREASE the reward or compensation to the TO (I think I read elsewhere that TO’s get “paid” for each player at their tournaments) for the # of players in the younger age groups, possibly at the expense of the compensation they get for masters. Now I realize I might have just opened another can of worms due to this “inequality,” but if the goal is to get more jr/sr, then this might do it. With added incentive, perhaps the TO’s might have some ideas to pull this off from the street level that Dave does not see from corporate.
Now you might be saying, figuring this out is not your job, fair enough. But if you feel a sense of community, then I think you may want to be part of the solution.
While I said previously I did not have a good answer, I think maybe folks closer to the game might. So my suggestion is to INCREASE the reward or compensation to the TO (I think I read elsewhere that TO’s get “paid” for each player at their tournaments) for the # of players in the younger age groups, possibly at the expense of the compensation they get for masters. Now I realize I might have just opened another can of worms due to this “inequality,” but if the goal is to get more jr/sr, then this might do it. With added incentive, perhaps the TO’s might have some ideas to pull this off from the street level that Dave does not see from corporate.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Agreed, HotGustofWind!
Hmmm. Well my first thought was that a $500 scholarship for a Regionals prize doesn't incent them to attend Nationals. Second thought was that 15-21 yr old Masters probably still want a scholarship too.
But indeed if the goal is just more prizes in their hands, rather than increasing attendance at Nationals, I'll admit scholarships were a big draw for us, mainly because our child attends private school now. But for families that aren't planning to pay tuition until college, perhaps the paperwork and deferred reward wasn't as big. "This will help you go to college!" vs. "This will help us go to Nationals!", the latter sounds much better to a kid.
Hmmm. Well my first thought was that a $500 scholarship for a Regionals prize doesn't incent them to attend Nationals. Second thought was that 15-21 yr old Masters probably still want a scholarship too.
But indeed if the goal is just more prizes in their hands, rather than increasing attendance at Nationals, I'll admit scholarships were a big draw for us, mainly because our child attends private school now. But for families that aren't planning to pay tuition until college, perhaps the paperwork and deferred reward wasn't as big. "This will help you go to college!" vs. "This will help us go to Nationals!", the latter sounds much better to a kid.
Mom whats your opinion on simply giving all age groups $300 instead of $500 for just Junior and Seniors?
Reading this topic late, so forgive me if this has already been replied to.
You know, sometimes people who are associated with a company are a bit restricted in how they may criticize that company in public due to agreements they have signed.
Instead of thinking that they are plotting your downfall, you might also take their silence on a subject to mean that maybe, just maybe, they agree with the players but feel that it's best to let the players have their say on the subject and keep quiet themselves.
People are not always out to get you and if you approach life thinking that they are, you do them and yourself a disservice.
Pop I fully understand what your saying, but to give my point of view its very hard to have a discussion with them because literally every time there point of view is P!P is always right. It kind of feels like trying to tell Fox news the Democrats aren't going to destroy the world.
I'm flashing back to 2001/2002.
What happened in 2001/2002?
WOTC replaced the Masters age division with the Professor Program. A horribly mismanaged farce of a "deal" wherein they gained free employees and salesmen and gave us zero tournaments.
What happened to the game at that point?
This:
While this is nowhere near as extreme, this is the same type of thing we've seen in the past.
It ruined the game for half a decade, if not longer. We're honestly still recovering from that particular decision.
Bullados: While I would agree with you that the decision to eliminate 15+ from Pokemon tournaments was the worst thing to have happened to the Pokemon TCG franchise, I would also say that there has been no proven cause and effect relationship between that decision and Pokemon TCG sales.
Bear in mind that at that time, and still somewhat so today, the vast majority of Pokemon cards were bought by collectors and children who never ever played the TCG.
While some Masters may have abandoned the game at that time, most did not; and even if most had, that might have reflected a slight downturn in sales.
But the huge high to huge low really reflected the fact that, for most customers, Pokemon was a fad and as a fad it flew high and came crashing down.
What is amazing, though, is the hard core base that stuck through the low point of that crash, and gave this game the foundation to build up an active gaming community that thrives.
tl;dr: Correlation does not imply causation
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
I may be a little (alright, I'm really late) on this topic, but after skimming the 15 pages of responses on here I have a fairly simple question.
Does anyone understand marketing anymore?
The statement from Dav essentially says that the decision is meant to facilitate growth in the Junior and Senior division, and many here have asked how that makes sense, mainly how does it influence the younger players more than masters.
It's really fairly simple answer, younger players lack key things that masters have, namely income, transportation, and connections. The former two are provided by the parent and convincing them is an important requirement to the child's prolonged play. The latter is something that is established over time by them interacting with other players and making friendships and meeting people they can trust, and this gives them added incentive to attend events.
Now what does this have to do with the stipends? The stipends make it more worthwhile to the parent and making it more likely that they will invest the money into taking or getting their kid there. In the case of really big multi-day events parents will want to be there to support and keep track of their kid it costs more money to have them attend said events, which makes the trip more expensive. I think that much is fairly simple to understand.
Now why are Masters exempt from this? Well for one Masters by large don't require the additional money for an extra person. Additionally Masters are a less risky age group than Juniors and Senior, because we have connections. Many of us have friends that we may only get to see at events, and give us a reason to continue playing. Furthermore we also have fond memories of past formats that drive us to keep playing, and since we don't have the same limiting factors as the younger divisions we are more able to play the game at our leisure.
Finally, Master often become such loyal players because many started as Juniors/Seniors, or they got involved because of them. So in essence to further establish the stable Master division they have to give the Junior and Seniors enough incentive to get and stay involved.
So from a marketing and growth standpoint this decision makes plenty of sense. Essentially provide the necessities to keep the younger age groups involved, and they'll become part of the more stable age group.
Does anyone understand marketing anymore?
The statement from Dav essentially says that the decision is meant to facilitate growth in the Junior and Senior division, and many here have asked how that makes sense, mainly how does it influence the younger players more than masters.
It's really fairly simple answer, younger players lack key things that masters have, namely income, transportation, and connections. The former two are provided by the parent and convincing them is an important requirement to the child's prolonged play. The latter is something that is established over time by them interacting with other players and making friendships and meeting people they can trust, and this gives them added incentive to attend events.
Now what does this have to do with the stipends? The stipends make it more worthwhile to the parent and making it more likely that they will invest the money into taking or getting their kid there. In the case of really big multi-day events parents will want to be there to support and keep track of their kid it costs more money to have them attend said events, which makes the trip more expensive. I think that much is fairly simple to understand.
Now why are Masters exempt from this? Well for one Masters by large don't require the additional money for an extra person. Additionally Masters are a less risky age group than Juniors and Senior, because we have connections. Many of us have friends that we may only get to see at events, and give us a reason to continue playing. Furthermore we also have fond memories of past formats that drive us to keep playing, and since we don't have the same limiting factors as the younger divisions we are more able to play the game at our leisure.
Finally, Master often become such loyal players because many started as Juniors/Seniors, or they got involved because of them. So in essence to further establish the stable Master division they have to give the Junior and Seniors enough incentive to get and stay involved.
So from a marketing and growth standpoint this decision makes plenty of sense. Essentially provide the necessities to keep the younger age groups involved, and they'll become part of the more stable age group.
GodBlessAmerica
New Member
You know what would be a good marketing plan? Don't make a huge cut to the oldest division (15+). Why? Because if you are a senior, you have no reason to look forward to being a Master. You will be playing in a more difficult division competing for significantly less prizes. If anything, awarding Masters more prizes would make customers continue to play the game in order to pursue bigger and better prizes. At the very least the prizes should be equal or close to equal.
I am willing to bet money that there will be no significant growth for the juniors and seniors divisions with just the plan of giving more prizes. If they want to grow the player base in these divisions, they should buy advertisement space promoting league and organized play on the network broadcasting the TV show (I'm not sure which network that is, but I assume the show is still running) In addition to that, putting nearly costless cards in booster packs advertising league and organized play is a good way to grow the attendance in the younger divisions.
I don't know how expensive this plan would be, but it makes a lot more sense than the plan they are using.
Like Mr. Hornung has mentioned, it is incredibly frustrating to see certain people defending TPCi no matter what they do.
I am willing to bet money that there will be no significant growth for the juniors and seniors divisions with just the plan of giving more prizes. If they want to grow the player base in these divisions, they should buy advertisement space promoting league and organized play on the network broadcasting the TV show (I'm not sure which network that is, but I assume the show is still running) In addition to that, putting nearly costless cards in booster packs advertising league and organized play is a good way to grow the attendance in the younger divisions.
I don't know how expensive this plan would be, but it makes a lot more sense than the plan they are using.
Like Mr. Hornung has mentioned, it is incredibly frustrating to see certain people defending TPCi no matter what they do.
And it is even more frustrating to see certain people bashing TPCi no matter what they do.
Both of you are absolutely right. It is all about expectations. If an individual expects things to be positive the will only see positive aspects. If an individual expects things to be negative they will only see the negative aspects. It is Psychology.
There are less individuals here that can see the positives because of a handful of individuals do have the ability to see both sides of the issue. IMO If you can't see the positives and the negatives of an issue and you can't understand where the other side is coming from, you shouldn't be posting.
Last edited:
This one they got completely wrong come on man lol the other stunts were debatable, unfortunately this one isn't.
psychup2034
New Member
Your claim is completely incorrect. Most of the players are quite objective when it comes to evaluating the decisions of TPCi. Over the course of the year I've been back into the game, I have seen Pokemon make an array of decisions. I've listed some of the major decisions that have been made since I returned to the game in June 2010. The list will be a little skewed toward recent decisions, as they are more salient in my head as I write this post. Feel free to make additions to the list as you see fit.
- Rotating before Nationals in 2010. Generally applauded by community.
- Changing to a Championship Point system for 2011-2012. Generally applauded by community.
- Splitting Regionals into two events for 2011-2012. Generally applauded by community.
- Cutting scholarships from Regionals in 2011-2012. Generally viewed as bad by community.
- Adding a third weekend of States in 2012. Generally applauded by community.
- Splitting Regionals into 3 so that the "far" Regionals requires a flight for 2012-2013. Generally viewed as bad by community.
- Inviting those players tied with the same number of Championship Points as the 40th place (50th in Europe) to Worlds. Generally applauded by community.
- Failure to go to Top 32 at Worlds in 2012, despite 127 masters. Generally viewed as bad by community.
- Giving Top 33-64 at Worlds 2012 Championship Points in Masters. Generally applauded by community.
- Worlds 2013 announced to be in Vancouver. Generally applauded by community.
- Lack of communication about Fall 2012 Battle Roads CP structure until the last minute. Generally viewed as bad by community.
- Failure to truly diminish the importance of Battle Roads in the new Championship Point structure for 2012-2013.Generally viewed as bad by community.
- New Championship Point structure for 2012-2013. Generally applauded by community.
- Adding top cut to VG Regionals for 2012-2013. Generally applauded by community.
- Discriminatory prize structure for Fall Regionals 2012. Generally viewed as bad by community.
evil psyduck, I challenge you to find one player who has bashed TPCi for all of the decisions they made that I listed above. Obviously, the player that you find would have to have a written record of "bashing TPCi," either through the 'gym, or another forum. The posts also have to be timely, so you can't just have someone make posts bashing TPCi right now to win the wager I'm about to propose. If you find one, I will personally (with my own money) take you for a fancy dinner (and drinks if you wish) at Nationals this year. I'm completely serious.
If you can't find one player who has bashed TPCi for all of the decisions they made that I listed above, then you are completely and utterly wrotng about your quoted satement: "And it is even more frustrating to see certain people bashing TPCi no matter what they do."