Prize Increase for States!

[z-man]

I buy cards every now and then, but I'm nowhere as competitive as I used to be. As such, I most likely wouldn't pay $10 to play in those tournaments. I'm sure many other casual players agree with me.

Why is that? You probably spend more money on gas to go to the events. Movie tickets these days are $13. IMO, you're getting better value paying the $10 to compete in tournaments... it lasts longer than a movie and the quality of entertainment is better... JMHO

IDK if I'd be comfortable with having masters only pay for tournaments. If we're deadset on having the divisions unequal, I guess it wouldn't be an awful compromise. Honestly, though, it just... wouldn't seem right. They'd need to show exactly where that money was going and that the money was being given back to us in some way (prizes/etc). The change would have mixed reactions at first, but I'm sure everyone would get over it. When we travel for events, what's an extra $10? It isn't exactly going to put aa dent in our budgets.

 

[Prof Clay]

whether or not the change is fair....not getting to that argument...

But a child under 15 a) must have a guardian to make it to Nats
b) must have transportation, housing AND FOOD for 2 for the weekend
c) cannot work a partime job to make any outside income to fund a trip to Nats
(don't want to get into "but they COULD...")

That $500 is going to help fund AT LEAST 2 people to Nats.

A kid 15 to 18 a) might need a guardian..depends on the kid and family
b) must have transportation, housing AND FOOD for the weekend
C) Can get a job to help fund the trip to Nats...can earn cash for their needs in Indy.

Please do not jump me with the what ifs and buts...we all know there are exceptions...but no one can budget for them in a situation like this


I think this decision is one of practicality than fairness. Its also a Marketing tool...may or may not have any of the hoped for effect...but unless masters players suddenly change from the folks I have known for 10 years...I doubt this will truly not effect attendance for that age group in any major way.

 

[eriknance]

Why is that? You probably spend more money on gas to go to the events. Movie tickets these days are $13. IMO, you're getting better value paying the $10 to compete in tournaments... it lasts longer than a movie and the quality of entertainment is better... JMHO

z-man, I hate to say it, but I think what Phazon says may ring true for the "casual players." I totally agree with your point, that 10$ is a relatively small cost when compared to all the other ways the Pokemon TCG pinches one's wallet (gas money, hotel stay, cards bought "here and there," food, and so on), so don't think I'm arguing about that. Unfortunately though, I think many Masters would frown at the idea of an entry fee on principle alone. From a casual player's perspective, you would be paying 10$ so some other "elite player" could walk away with some earnings.

Rationally, complaining about a 10$ entry fee doesn't make any sense. I want Phazon to speak for himself, but I think many players would be opposed to it because they would see more money going to Juniors and Seniors while Masters are now being asked to shell out their own cash.

The silver lining? If I've learned anything about the Masters group in the Pokemon TCG, it's this — they will continue playing no matter what. My brother and I used to complain about decreased prize support, and he would often remark that players would eventually quit at the rate things were going. I actually said the opposite, that Masters would continue to play no matter what P!P did, simply because they're in love with the game and its community of players. Turns out I was right, but I don't think it's an excuse for P!P to ignore the Masters.

Note: To clarify, I think many players would initially be opposed to a 10$ fee — we would end up with another thread like this where everyone vents their frustration with P!P — but things would eventually go on like normal. There might some Phazon's out there who decide to stop playing, but I think even many of them would finally just shrug their shoulders and pay the fee. If P!P approached the decision proactively and explained the fee, we could avoid the initial bickering. But they don't really do that, sooo.... yeah.

 

[Phazon Elite]

Why is that? You probably spend more money on gas to go to the events. Movie tickets these days are $13. IMO, you're getting better value paying the $10 to compete in tournaments... it lasts longer than a movie and the quality of entertainment is better... JMHO

IDK if I'd be comfortable with having masters only pay for tournaments. If we're deadset on having the divisions unequal, I guess it wouldn't be an awful compromise. Honestly, though, it just... wouldn't seem right. They'd need to show exactly where that money was going and that the money was being given back to us in some way (prizes/etc). The change would have mixed reactions at first, but I'm sure everyone would get over it. When we travel for events, what's an extra $10? It isn't exactly going to put aa dent in our budgets.

Well I'm lucky enough to live right by one of the most common venues for most big oregon tournaments, so I don't pay much in gas at all. But that's pretty inconsequential to my point.

I actually have a few reasons why I am opposed to an entry fee for tournaments.

Part of my reasoning is that I already would have to spend $X on cards. I'm not exactly poor, but I'm frugal when it comes to spending, and the idea of paying to play in a big tournament doesn't appeal to me, especially with the cost of building or modifying a deck (same reason I never got competitive beyond Fnm in magic).

Plus I'm just used to it being free. I've been around the competitive scene since 2004 and non-prerelease tournaments have always been free. It's kind of an expectation of mine that I can walk into the venue with only lunch money and enjoy a lazy day playing cards.

Yes the entry fee could go towards more prizes that could conceivably. benefit me, but I honestly never cared about prizes once I got desensitized to them and/or became a casual player. Right now, I don't play to get prizes, I just play to hang out with friends I haven't seen in a while. That's what is most important to me. I get that I'm in the minority in not caring about prizes, but I can't say I agree with something just because its what everybody else wants.

Therefore, since I am cheap, used to a $0 entry fee, and not excited by the idea of more prizes, I oppose any kind of entry fee in non-prerelease tournaments.

 

[z-man]

Prof Clay, unless things have changed (or I'm remembering incorrectly), all minors need parents or guardians to pick up the stipends. There are ways around it, but that requires jumping through hoops. Again, we can posit all forms of reasons for these changes, but we have what Professor_Dav said last time to go by. What you're saying may be a benefit of the change, but according to Professor_Dav, it wasn't the primary reason for the change. Moreover, kids 15-17 are still minors. That being said, minors can travel by themselves legally. My 10 year old cousin is flying from Chicago to Las Vegas this summer... by himself. He's going to stay with my family when he gets here. It would be equally possible for him to fly from Chicago to Indianapolis and stay with friends (if he cared to). He is 10 years old and does not need transportation (or housing) for 2. To pick up the stipends, he would need a parent, yes, but it'd be the same if he were 16 (as I recall... please correct me if I'm wrong).


Phazon, erik, you two are probably right. Tournaments have been free for years, so adding an entry cost would definitely be difficult. I can definitely understand and, had this been brought up before I went "competitive", I'd probably be against fees as well. If fees were added, we'd probably see a thread on gym with people defending and opposing the decision (which is good! discussion is good!).

Let's say they collect $10 per player. If we get 200 paying players, that'd be $2000. All of that extra money doesn't need to go to prizes necessarily. What would you (this is more targetted towards Phazon and people who agree with him) take to be willing to pay the $10 for tournaments? We (as a community) are already comfortable paying $25/$30 for prereleases, so would you feel okay paying $10 to get some packs at the beginning of the event? What if they were like POP packs where you could only get them by entering events? What if, if you register early, you would get a hat/playmat/binder/whatever with the tournament logo on it (i.e. a unique Oregon States playmats). Would that make you more comfortable with tournament fees? If I were to guess, I'm pretty sure there is a compromise to be made regarding tournament fees. Finding where that compromise is will be difficult, and I'm not sure TPCi would ever decide to enact fees, but there's definitely a way to... erm... "buy" players into paying fees (tee hee).

Just for history, if you're interested, nationals up until 2007 (I think) took place at Origins. Badges just to get into the tournament area were $70 (ish... IIRC)... even if you were a parent. That was awful and I'm glad we moved, but people have, in the past, been willing to pay to get into the tournament... that was too much, though. Most of us didn't care about the other things Origins had to offer, so the badge was absolutely worthless beyond getting to the Pokemon area. Even so, we stuck through it (not without being upset about it, though).

 

[Prof Clay]

Prof Clay, unless things have changed (or I'm remembering incorrectly), all minors need parents or guardians to pick up the stipends. There are ways around it, but that requires jumping through hoops. Again, we can posit all forms of reasons for these changes, but we have what Professor_Dav said last time to go by. What you're saying may be a benefit of the change, but according to Professor_Dav, it wasn't the primary reason for the change. Moreover, kids 15-17 are still minors. That being said, minors can travel by themselves legally. My 10 year old cousin is flying from Chicago to Las Vegas this summer... by himself. He's going to stay with my family when he gets here. It would be equally possible for him to fly from Chicago to Indianapolis and stay with friends (if he cared to). He is 10 years old and does not need transportation (or housing) for 2. To pick up the stipends, he would need a parent, yes, but it'd be the same if he were 16 (as I recall... please correct me if I'm wrong).

As I said...always exceptions to the rule...

 

[z-man]

Clay, that isn't an exception. It is legal for a minor to travel alone... without jumping through any hoops. The parents only really need to be there to pick up the stipend, but that happens to be for all minors, not just juniors/seniors. Even that can, with good planning, be circumvented. There is very little difference between a 14 year old and a 15 year old, so why pretend there is?

 

[chrataxe]

whether or not the change is fair....not getting to that argument...

But a child under 15 a) must have a guardian to make it to Nats
b) must have transportation, housing AND FOOD for 2 for the weekend
c) cannot work a partime job to make any outside income to fund a trip to Nats
(don't want to get into "but they COULD...")

That $500 is going to help fund AT LEAST 2 people to Nats.

A kid 15 to 18 a) might need a guardian..depends on the kid and family
b) must have transportation, housing AND FOOD for the weekend
C) Can get a job to help fund the trip to Nats...can earn cash for their needs in Indy.

Please do not jump me with the what ifs and buts...we all know there are exceptions...but no one can budget for them in a situation like this


I think this decision is one of practicality than fairness. Its also a Marketing tool...may or may not have any of the hoped for effect...but unless masters players suddenly change from the folks I have known for 10 years...I doubt this will truly not effect attendance for that age group in any major way.

I won't jump on you for the "what ifs and but," however, I will point out how utterly illogical that post is.

Lets say a kid plays Pokemon. He obviously doesn't have a job as he is a kid, but he has money to consistently make tier 1 decks and go to all of the tournaments. So, his actual expense on Pokemon thus far, is, lets say the price of his cards. Lets just say $300. AND, lets say gas. $100/tournament. So, lets assume it cost him $300 for his cards and $100 for gas.

Lets say an adult plays Pokemon. He obviously has a job as he is an adult. He has money to conisistenly make tier 1 decks and go to all of the tournaments. So, his actual expense on Pokemon thus far, lets say the price of his cards. Lets say $300. AND, lets say gas. $100/tournament. So, lets assume it cost him $300 for his cards and $100 for gas.

No matter what gets added to the above paragraphs, there a few things that will never change. In fact, the only DIFFERENT factor is food as you to pay for two people to eat instead of one...and, lets be honest, THAT isn't that much. The point is, the kid has to get there somehow: the parent was ALREADY taking off for them to go, its not putting them out "extra." The parent was ALREADY paying for the gas for them to go, its not putting them out "extra." The parent was ALREADY paying for the gas, its not putting them out "extra." The transportation and housing "for 2" cost the same as it does for one. It doesn't matter who's job is paying for the cards, they are either willing to or not.

The moral of the story is, it cost the same (generally speaking) for everyone to play the game. This horrible idea that it cost more for kids to play the game is ridiculous. In fact, Juniors in particular, can win way more with worse decks and sustain their deck building with their winnings, making it way cheaper for them.

I find it hard to believe that kids are going to show up in droves with this arguement:
"Hey Mom, any chance you will drive us 4 hours to states?"
Her brow furrows as she places a hand on her hips. "Um, no," she asked.
"But, Mom, IF I win, I can get $500 to go to the next tournament!"
Her eyebrows raised, interest genuinely piqued. "Really? How long will this last and what are the chances of you actually winning?"
"Well, the tournament will probably last most of the day."
"Losing interest..." his mother quickly interrupted, feigning boredom, "what are the chances of you winning?"
"Umm, I don't know. I mean, I only have a modified starter deck, but Johnny gave me two extra Garchomps one of the them is even the good one!"

---------- Post added 02/08/2013 at 01:15 PM ----------

Additionally, the kids don't have to pay bills and the adults that play do. The OTHER point I forgot to make was that, while every "sacrifice" the parent has to make for the kid to play (like, taking off from work), the adult player ALSO has to make (like, taking off from work).

 

[Prof Clay]

never mind....point missed

 

[chrataxe]

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

To answer this, its because you question is flawed as it makes a false assumption. The question you posed assumes that the ONLY "extra" prizes the Juniors and Seniors are getting is $200 this one time. But, its not. During Regionals, Juniors and Seniors had $500 travel awards paid down all the way to 4th place, while ONLY the winner of Masters got $500. That is the crux of the issue. They are continually given better prizes. IF the prizes were the same but instead, the prizes said, "players under 18 will be given a $500 stipend to account for guardian travel," no one would have a problem. That means it is also extended to Masters.

---------- Post added 02/08/2013 at 01:24 PM ----------

never mind....point missed

It wasn't missed.

 

[LOLZ]

IF the prizes were the same but instead, the prizes said, "players under 18 will be given a $500 stipend to account for guardian travel," no one would have a problem. That means it is also extended to Masters.

I agree, awarding prizes in this would make logical sense. In our society those under the age of 18 are legally and socially seen as children. Most parents will not let their child travel to another city or another state for a few days without proper supervision so parent/guardian must go, which cost more money. It makes sense for those 15-17 years old to receive additional travel stipend money just like Juniors/Seniors receive for the same reasoning. This is something I would hope TPCI/P!P would consider. Changing prizes in this way, should make the discontent most of the community shares to be resolved, but there would be those who would still not be happy about the change. A lingering sense of entitlement is the problem.

 

[Raen]

I agree, awarding prizes in this would make logical sense. In our society those under the age of 18 are legally and socially seen as children. Most parents will not let their child travel to another city or another state for a few days without proper supervision so parent/guardian must go, which cost more money. It makes sense for those 15-17 years old to receive additional travel stipend money just like Juniors/Seniors receive for the same reasoning. This is something I would hope TPCI/P!P would consider. Changing prizes in this way, should make the discontent most of the community shares to be resolved, but there would be those who would still not be happy about the change. A lingering sense of entitlement is the problem. n.

Ok, I didn't have an issue with this post until the bolded statement.

Yes, there are SOME folks that feel too entitled. Maybe even me (although, I will say I've never played when prizes were higher than they are now, so I'm hardly used to good prizes). However, it seems to me that most folks here don't have THAT big of an issue with Masters receiving weaker prizes (although it sure isn't something we all like), but rather we have an issue with HOW the money is being used. It's being used poorly for it's intended purpose (expanding Junior/Senior interest in the game). That's the issue here.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Ok, I didn't have an issue with this post until the bolded statement.

Yes, there are SOME folks that feel too entitled. Maybe even me (although, I will say I've never played when prizes were higher than they are now, so I'm hardly used to good prizes). However, it seems to me that most folks here don't have THAT big of an issue with Masters receiving weaker prizes (although it sure isn't something we all like), but rather we have an issue with HOW the money is being used. It's being used poorly for it's intended purpose (expanding Junior/Senior interest in the game). That's the issue here.

I'm getting so tired of this argument. The point of the reward increase isn't solely to increase Junior/Senior attendance, but to compensate them for the additional costs that they must pay for being minors, as they have to cover the expenses for both parent and child. For those of you thinking that it doesn't matter, it does, you try convincing a parent to take you to an even that you've received a voucher for only to be shot down because the compensation isn't good enough.

Children have more expenses and inherent hoops to jump through as they have parents to deal with. FACT

Masters have fewer people to pay for per individual going. FACT

Stop making this about Pokemon hating, or mistreating masters. That isn't what's going on, AND YOU KNOW IT!

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Instead of adding a whopping $200 to the junior division prizes and to the senior division prizes, take all of that money and put it towards better advertising. Make commercials that advertise pokemon league. Put an advertisement card in each booster pack advertising organized play, whether it be leagues or pre-releases or other pokemon events. It tilts me the wrong way that someone gets paid to make decisions that enrage the largest part of the pokemon community, when a better use of their resources wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[camerongira]

Ok I wanted to not in to this but oh well. I really feel that master division is being treated unfairly. Last time I saw master division was beating out the attendance of juniors and seniors at almost every event. Further most last time I checked master is the backbone of the game, so why hinderance with less prize support. I just do not understand why also I haven't seen any junior or senior going to/ or say they are going to buy a case or a box of the current set or a new set, so as a master I would like to see some sort of schoarlship or travel award to see my money did not go to waste. I know I'll probably get " well you are selfish" quotes but I'm not I just want to see each division treated equally.

 

[z-man]

I'm getting so tired of this argument. The point of the reward increase isn't solely to increase Junior/Senior attendance, but to compensate them for the additional costs that they must pay for being minors, as they have to cover the expenses for both parent and child. For those of you thinking that it doesn't matter, it does, you try convincing a parent to take you to an even that you've received a voucher for only to be shot down because the compensation isn't good enough.

Children have more expenses and inherent hoops to jump through as they have parents to deal with. FACT

Masters have fewer people to pay for per individual going. FACT

Stop making this about Pokemon hating, or mistreating masters. That isn't what's going on, AND YOU KNOW IT!

That'd be a noble intent, but it wasn't the primary intent of the Regionals changes (see Professor Dav's post). Not once did he mention covering expenses for both parent and child (although that probably is one of the points behind the decision... just not the main point). The Regionals prizes were changed to foster growth in J/S. It is very likely the same logic went behind this case.

Your second fact... isn't exactly correct. It actually kinda conflicts with your first fact as "masters" and "children" are not mutually exclusive. Let me introduce you to my brother, Joshua. He is 15 years old and he is a master. If he were to win states this year, he would need our parents to travel with him to pick up the travel stipends because he is still a minor. Obviously, last year, he was a senior. I still fail to understand why the line is arbitrarily cut between 14 and 15 especially when there's an already very fine (legal) line between 17 and 18. If their goals were to lessen the load on parents, why not set this line at the most logical place?

Pokemon obviously doesn't hate its masters. Are they mistreating us... not necessarily... I think most of us agree that the money could be better spent, and many of the masters feel like TPCi is showing J/S unnecessary preferential treatment.

Also, guys, can we please please please stop with the snide comments? People in this thread have been called (mostly indirectly), "entitled", "ignorant", and "selfish". Nobody likes being talked down to. This is a good conversation, so please keep it good.

 

[TAndrewT]

I don't really have an opinion about this either way. Organized Play allocates resources differently to Juniors, Seniors and Masters. In some areas, P!P allocates more resources to Masters than Juniors or Seniors. Judges are provided, TOs/PTOs staff events, and venues are rented out more for Masters than Juniors or Seniors. If your State Championship runs for two days instead of one, or is staffed until 11 PM Saturday night, it will not be because of Juniors or Seniors. Yes, in some areas, P!P provides more resources to Juniors and Seniors. Prize support is unequal, and as a function of the number of players in each division, it is even more unequal.

Juniors, Seniors and Masters are not treated the same. To my knowledge, as long as those divisions have existed, they never have been.

 

[z-man]

I don't really have an opinion about this either way. Organized Play allocates resources differently to Juniors, Seniors and Masters. In some areas, P!P allocates more resources to Masters than Juniors or Seniors. Judges are provided, TOs/PTOs staff events, and venues are rented out more for Masters than Juniors or Seniors. If your State Championship runs for two days instead of one, or is staffed until 11 PM Saturday night, it will not be because of Juniors or Seniors. Yes, in some areas, P!P provides more resources to Juniors and Seniors. Prize support is unequal, and as a function of the number of players in each division, it is even more unequal.

Juniors, Seniors and Masters are not treated the same. To my knowledge, as long as those divisions have existed, they never have been.

We do allocate different resources for the age divisions. Is that because they're different age divisions? I'd argue... for almost everything... no. All of the differences you mentioned are not there because we want to treat the divisions separately. Masters require more judges and more time because the masters division is the biggest. If all masters players suddenly regressed to 13 year olds and the Seniors players suddenly became 20, would we run things differently than we do now? The seniors division would be the biggest division, so we'd allocate resources based on size. The judges, venues, and whatnot aren't there for the masters... they're there for the players as a whole. The three divisions are treated equally in regards to the resources being allocated for the most part. We predict what is necessary based on previous numbers (and potential growth) and reallocate based on size. This isn't an imbalance in divisions... merely a thoughtful numbers game.

This change... isn't that. They aren't explicitly allocating money based on numbers. Again, if they were, it'd make a lot more sense to give the money to minors than just juniors and seniors.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

That'd be a noble intent, but it wasn't the primary intent of the Regionals changes (see Professor Dav's post). Not once did he mention covering expenses for both parent and child (although that probably is one of the points behind the decision... just not the main point). The Regionals prizes were changed to foster growth in J/S. It is very likely the same logic went behind this case.

Rarely is it the case that they'd choose an such a thing for only one reason. Although he said that that was the reason, there were likely additional reasons. Plus what better way to foster a better connection than to lessen the obvious downsides of being a part of said age group. The two reasons aren't mutually exclusive.

Your second fact... isn't exactly correct. It actually kinda conflicts with your first fact as "masters" and "children" are not mutually exclusive. Let me introduce you to my brother, Joshua. He is 15 years old and he is a master. If he were to win states this year, he would need our parents to travel with him to pick up the travel stipends because he is still a minor. Obviously, last year, he was a senior. I still fail to understand why the line is arbitrarily cut between 14 and 15 especially when there's an already very fine (legal) line between 17 and 18. If their goals were to lessen the load on parents, why not set this line at the most logical place?

I'll admit that I forgot that point. Even so my point should be fairly obvious, the majority of masters don't have to pay for multiple people for a single person's participation.

Pokemon obviously doesn't hate its masters. Are they mistreating us... not necessarily... I think most of us agree that the money could be better spent, and many of the masters feel like TPCi is showing J/S unnecessary preferential treatment.

Frankly I doubt it, why would they spend money in an inefficient way? The obvious answer (which I believe to be likely) is they can't, or b, is too difficult to do. We rarely see the true costs of things, as there are a number of factors that they have to take into account for any one result.

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

I can't imagine printing advertisement cards for leagues and premier events to be put in booster packs would cost that much, TRWP. At some point you have to stop defending the company and accept that they are making mistakes.